# Supreme Court will be taking the issue of the 2nd amendment head on...



## Cruentus (Nov 20, 2007)

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-levy14nov14,0,2444377.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

That is just an opinion article on the subject written a few days ago; but on the News today I caught a blurb that the Supreme Court will review the Parker vs. District of Columbia case.

This is HUGE folks. In their doing this, our supreme court will define whether or not the 2nd amendment applies to individual rights or not.

This is make or break time here folks. Time to see if we still live in a free country or not. ALL gun control legislation will fall under this ruling one way or the other when they make their decision. If they decide that the 2nd amendment does not apply to individuals, then gun control laws will follow to eventually erode our right to bear arms. If they decide that it does apply to the individual, then our rights will be protected.

This is very scary, folks; but I really hope that our civil liberties are preserved.

I will try to find more recent articles on the subject, and keep updated on this...


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 20, 2007)

Here we go; an official announcement that the Supreme Court will be taking up the issue, straight from the Supreme Court of the US blog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-agrees-to-rule-on-gun-case/


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 20, 2007)

Thanks for posting this. It's reasons like this that I'm glad the court is slightly right leaning. I'd hate to see such a broad scope ruling hacking away at the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 20, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Thanks for posting this. It's reasons like this that I'm glad the court is slightly right leaning. I'd hate to see such a broad scope ruling hacking away at the 2nd amendment.



I'm glad of this too, and this makes me sort of glad that they are taking on the issue now. But I am terrified of it going the other way; so the very fact that they are taking on the issue makes me nervous. But I think that this will go our way...


----------



## Doc_Jude (Nov 21, 2007)

If you pray, pray. Me, I think there may be a "break-in" at my house depending on how this thing goes. I might "lose" some stuff!


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 21, 2007)

Well, if it fails I must ask....

But what are we to do when... a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism....

It is our right, our duty, is it not?


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 21, 2007)

This is actually a good time to take the case.  In the past, the vote would probably have been 5-4 in favor of the gun grabbers, since Sandra Day-O'Connor isn't exactly a friend of the Second Amendment.  

With the current court, I expect a 5-4 ruling in favor of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy voting in the affirmative.


----------



## dart68 (Nov 22, 2007)

So when do the expect to hear this case?  Or did I miss that in the blog?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 22, 2007)

*I would be very, very nervous of this.*  Do not think for one minute that all the right leaning court members will vote for our right to bear arms.  This is very scary!


----------



## Guardian (Nov 22, 2007)

I sure hope they vote in favor of the 2nd Amendment because if they should not, we all know how this will go and it won't be good for us or this country.  States will follow and the first thing to go will be the CCW permits for sure and then (well we all know how it would go).  

Please keep us posted.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 22, 2007)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *I would be very, very nervous of this.*  Do not think for one minute that all the right leaning court members will vote for our right to bear arms.  This is very scary!



It is.  But all of the "experts" that I have heard say that we are safe, for now.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 22, 2007)

I think the writings of the founding fathers on the issue is exceeding clear. I hope that the attny arguing for individual rights has done his/her homework.


----------



## lhommedieu (Nov 22, 2007)

dart68 said:


> So when do the expect to hear this case? Or did I miss that in the blog?


 
According to a news story I heard on the radio last week they will hear the case by February and a decision is expected by early June, 2008.

I thought that George T. Will described the issue nicely in the following article:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/03/18/the_right_to_bear_arms_in_washington_dc

Following is a quote from Will's article:

"When Madison and others fashioned the Bill of Rights, they did not merely constitutionalize -- make fundamental -- the right to bear arms. They made the Second Amendment second only to the First, which protects the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and worship. They did that because individual dignity and self-respect, which are essential to self-government, are related to a readiness for self-defense -- the public's involvement in public safety."

Most people on either side generally frame the issue in terms of whether the Founding Fathers meant that either individuals have the right to bear arms for their personal protection or whether that right is reserved for members of the States' militias.  But a crucial turn in the argument may take place if the Plaintiff defines "militia" in terms of "a readiness for self-defense...the public's involvement in public safety..." i.e., whether the right to bear arms is a presupposition for the protection of other freedoms, that are not, in fact, simply "givens."

Best,

Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 22, 2007)

lhommedieu said:


> According to a news story I heard on the radio last week they will hear the case by February and a decision is expected by early June, 2008.
> 
> I thought that George T. Will described the issue nicely in the following article:
> 
> ...



I agree with the comments presented here. If one looks at the time period of just having to have a war of rebellion or independance depending upon which side you look, it would not have happened if the people could not have been able to take action in public safety as well as their own safety. 

I know my words are not as eloquent and I apologize for that. 

Thanks for sharing the link.


----------



## Guardian (Nov 22, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> I agree with the comments presented here. If one looks at the time period of just having to have a war of rebellion or independance depending upon which side you look, it would not have happened if the people could not have been able to take action in public safety as well as their own safety.
> 
> I know my words are not as eloquent and I apologize for that.
> 
> Thanks for sharing the link.


 
It's not the fanciness of the words my friend, it's the meaning behind them and yours say alot.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Nov 22, 2007)

Wow, wow, wow... I'm confused "...the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." how is that a debatable issue?

Come to think of it, then who could own guns? Black water? I'm not sure I trust them...


----------



## diamondbar1971 (Nov 22, 2007)

I live in the midwest, the ozarks, a genuine sure enough you betcha hillybilly, state, where i can guarantee you that it would take an absolute civil war to take guns from anyone that lives in the country in any of the
49 states of the western hemisphere. Everyone grows up hunting and fishing and a lot are vets with combat experience who would not bat an eye to defend their constutional right to bear arms and the government needs to understand just what the phrase bear arms means. i for one have no intention of giving my guns to anyone, except my kids when i pass on. thats one of the reasons this country has not been invaded, we all have guns and everyone else knows this. if something like this ever did pass, who would go collect the guns....and who would be able to manufacture that many body bags.....because thats exactly how it would be...


----------



## lhommedieu (Nov 23, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> "...the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." how is that a debatable issue?


 
It's debatable because of that little "a well-regulated militia" phrase that precedes your quote.  There is also a semantic difference between the right to "keep" arms and the right to "bear" them.  

Don't get me wrong - I support your right to keep _and_ bear arms.  It's just that the issue is complicated and up until now the two camps of the debate, both of which spend millions of dollars financing their candidates in local, state, and federal elections, are still talking past each other.  I'm not naive enought to think that Will's argument will appeal to either camp, but I am hoping that something similar will be argued before the Court in February and we can move past the "he said/she said" tenor of the debate.  I came across _this book_ that would appear to echo Will's claim that the right to bear arms is a _civic_ (not individual) duty.  I'm going to order it today. 

Just one more point:  if the Supreme Court rules _against_ the plaintiffs we'll be right back to where we stand today:  local and state governments will decide where your right to bear arms begins and ends. However, if the Court rules _for_ the plainfiffs you can expect to hear a lot of challenges to local and state ordinances.

Best,

Steve


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 23, 2007)

To me, even the thought that this must go before the Supreme Court is scary.

In my mind the Constitution is clear in what it says..  All  of the argument on it was written in a different time have no bearing on what it says.  It says the government may not infringe on the individuals right to bear arms.
Then again if you read it the way I do then no state should have the right to deny a person from owning a firearm.  Come to think about it I do not see where it says we have to pay the state a fee to own a firearm. But thats a different subject


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 23, 2007)

lhommedieu said:


> It's debatable because of that little "a well-regulated militia" phrase that precedes your quote.



It seems to me it states "Well-regulated militia" not "well-regulated arms".  Certainly the militia should be well regulated.  If they aren't they cannot work together and function in a capacity to repel whatever enemy is upon the people.  The right to arms is for everyone as this is the pool upon which the militia is drawn from.  I believe what is meant by a well-regulated militia, is a militia that is trained and operated properly.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 23, 2007)

Hmm.

This isn't a discussion I take part in lightly--those of you who know me, knowing of me what you do, will understand why this strikes such a deep chord with me, over and above the obvious 2nd Amendment apprehension.

Almost a year ago, I joined the Massachusetts State Guard (www.mastateguard.com). It's existed officially since 1863 and unofficially since 1620.

Basically, The MASG are what the very same Minutemen of Revolutionary days literally evolved into, and in spirit, so are the other 27 still-existing State Guards in the US. 

It's the same function that the Minutemen performed: We are all volunteer, we recieve no pay and no benefits for our service, we all have other jobs, we maybe don't train as often, we maybe don't have the best equipment, but we're there to do what must be done till the regular forces have time to mobilize, just the same.

So you see.....being, basically, a direct part of that lineage, why this situation troubles me so.

Well, I know what my spiritual forebears would have said to the question of the right to bear arms, because historical records of the battles of Lexington and Concord tell us just exactly what they DID say......."Bang".

I'll give you the idea in a nutshell:

After the passage in 1774 of the Intolerable Acts by the British Parliament, unrest in the colonies increased. The British commander at Boston, Gen. Thomas Gage , sought to avoid armed rebellion by sending a column of royal infantry from Boston to capture colonial military stores at Concord. News of his plan was dispatched to the countryside by Paul Revere, William Dawes, and Samuel Prescott. As the advance column under Major John Pitcairn reached Lexington, they came upon a group of militia (the Minutemen). After a brief exchange of shots in which several Americans were killed, the colonials withdrew, and the British continued to Concord. Here they destroyed some military supplies, fought another engagement, and began a harried withdrawal to Boston, which cost them over 200 casualties. 

Forget any grade school bull**** about "Taxation without Representation" being what kicked off the war....that was indeed a contested "hot button" issue at the time, but we didn't fight, we didn't commit to *war* until they came to take our guns.


And so the mere fact that this issue must be taken before the Supreme Court at all leaves me in doubt as to just how much of America is left.

At this stage there is nothing written in stone as to how the future will go. It may yet still be saved.

But I'll be honest with you, I'm more than a little bit pissed that it has had to come to this, and all because there are so many Americans who seem to be just so apathetic about issues, or have no brain of their own to think with rather than just parrot what the media and politicians say about "gun control", or who know just exactly what is going on and would so willingly go along with it despite what our forebears had to go through to get this Republic to start with.And this, despite having several examples in just the last century alone of what happens when you do it.

And politicians of either party who have forgotten their duty is to the people and not themselves, and who circle like sharks over any political football they can get hold of for their own ends.

I have had the misfortune to be born and raised in Massachusetts.

I say "misfortune" because I should have every right to be able to be proud of living in the state where so much history had its birth. The state which once had the right to be called "The Cradle of American Liberty" for its citizens' willingness to fight excessive taxation, stand up for their right to take up arms, and be treated like human beings.

And instead I must grit my teeth in disgust at the bitter irony that the place of my birth is now among the most anti-gun, ultraliberal, financially oppressive, tax-ridden sinkholes of evil a person can live in in this country, twisted, warped, and corrupted the full 180 degrees away from what it was meant to be.


I'm not gonna lie, it literally hurts to see it this way, and the general population, totally undeserving of the privilege of being called American citizens, all wrapped up in themselves and all too willing to keep electing and reelecting the same breed of  shark politicians that make it so.

It's at the point now where i feel I cannot have any sort of happy future life continuing to reside here, and am gone at my first chance.

But then--If this issue is going to the Supreme Court--and if they vote WRONG.....................

...then there will be NO place in America I will be able to feel I can have any sort of happy future life, because if the one thing that makes America fundamentally different from any other Western nation is taken away, America basically no longer exists at all. And I don't know if I could take seeing that happen.

Until I know what will happen, I think at this time I am going to decline public comment as to what I might or might not do in the event the Supreme Court should vote wrongly.

Granted, it isn't set in stone what will occur, but being who I am, how can I not feel apprehension at this?

But not every state is as irretrieveable as Massachusetts.

And not every American is undeserving of his/her citizenship.

And even a shark can bite off more than it can chew.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Nov 23, 2007)

Many folks don't understand the language that the 2nd Amendment was written in, & I believe that this is the main source of contention over the issue of gun ownership. This article explains things in a concise and somewhat entertaining manner.
We Don't Need No Stinking 2nd Amendment


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 23, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> Many folks don't understand the language that the 2nd Amendment was written in, & I believe that this is the main source of contention over the issue of gun ownership. This article explains things in a concise and somewhat entertaining manner.
> We Don't Need No Stinking 2nd Amendment


 
Should be manditory reading. Good link.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 23, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> Many folks don't understand the language that the 2nd Amendment was written in, & I believe that this is the main source of contention over the issue of gun ownership. This article explains things in a concise and somewhat entertaining manner.
> We Don't Need No Stinking 2nd Amendment


 
great article, thanks for posting the link.


----------



## lhommedieu (Nov 23, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> Many folks don't understand the language that the 2nd Amendment was written in, & I believe that this is the main source of contention over the issue of gun ownership. This article explains things in a concise and somewhat entertaining manner.
> We Don't Need No Stinking 2nd Amendment


 
Nice.  I like the quotes by Jefferson, and Washington, particularly.  Will's article, which I referenced above, depends upon this original meaning of the word "militia."  It will be interesting to listen to the arguements made before the Court.

Best,

Steve


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 24, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> Many folks don't understand the language that the 2nd Amendment was written in, & I believe that this is the main source of contention over the issue of gun ownership. This article explains things in a concise and somewhat entertaining manner.
> We Don't Need No Stinking 2nd Amendment


 

Nice read Doc Jude!


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 24, 2007)

An amazing article with much food for thought in it


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 24, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> Many folks don't understand the language that the 2nd Amendment was written in, & I believe that this is the main source of contention over the issue of gun ownership. This article explains things in a concise and somewhat entertaining manner.
> We Don't Need No Stinking 2nd Amendment



Awesome article!


----------



## bydand (Nov 24, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> Many folks don't understand the language that the 2nd Amendment was written in, & I believe that this is the main source of contention over the issue of gun ownership. This article explains things in a concise and somewhat entertaining manner.
> We Don't Need No Stinking 2nd Amendment



Thank you for the link.  It is nice to see it in print.  I will be following this real close, I know how I would hope and pray that the Court goes with the decision.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 24, 2007)

What I find interesting is the fact that people concentrate on the meaning of the word *militia.*  Why is that?  Because ultimately it says the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, for a definition of what people means, one need only look at the other amendments, such as the fourth:

The right of the *people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

So, based on this, it shows the the *individual* has the right, not an organized militia.  Otherwise, only specific groups of people have the right to be secure in their possessions, not the individual.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 24, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Now, for a definition of what people means, one need only look at the other amendments, such as the fourth:
> 
> The right of the *people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> 
> So, based on this, it shows the the *individual* has the right, not an organized militia. Otherwise, only specific groups of people have the right to be secure in their possessions, not the individual.


 
it's pretty sad when all of us can properly interpret the Constitution but a bunch of folks with ivy league degrees can't.  (of course, that just feeds my personal belief that they know what the 2nd Amendment means, they just want to take our rights away anyway because they're a bunch of commie filth)


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 25, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> it's pretty sad when all of us can properly interpret the Constitution but a bunch of folks with ivy league degrees can't.  (of course, that just feeds my personal belief that they know what the 2nd Amendment means, they just want to take our rights away anyway because they're a bunch of commie filth)



This is true, I think, in that they know how this was originally intended. I think that what happens is that many people let their desires of what they want and how they think things should be superceed the integrity of their arguments.


----------



## dart68 (Nov 25, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> What I find interesting is the fact that people concentrate on the meaning of the word *militia.* Why is that? Because ultimately it says the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Now, for a definition of what people means, one need only look at the other amendments, such as the fourth:
> 
> ...


 
I've actually read articles by antis that state that the meaning of *people* in the other amendments is *not* the same as in the 2nd!  All I want to know is ... who's been spiking their crack?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 26, 2007)

dart68 said:


> I've actually read articles by antis that state that the meaning of *people* in the other amendments is *not* the same as in the 2nd!  All I want to know is ... who's been spiking their crack?




I have never heard that.  From my understanding, the issue has always been over the definition of militia.

If we cant even agree on the definition of words, then people will never get anywhere.

Can anyone say *1984*...???


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 26, 2007)

Funny thing, back in those day, the military arms were the same as the arms that the people used.  It could also be interpreted by a stretch that the founder fathers intended that the people have the same arms as any standing army.  Of course nowadays, there is a big difference the arms of civilians and those of the military.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 26, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Funny thing, back in those day, the military arms were the same as the arms that the people used.  It could also be interpreted by a stretch that the founder fathers intended that the people have the same arms as any standing army.  Of course nowadays, there is a big difference the arms of civilians and those of the military.



That is an interesting argument or topic, probably worthy of it's own thread. Philisophically speaking, we need to at least be able to to own what could equalize a threat (that being pistols and long guns). Insurgents can run around with AK-47s and be a threat equalizer, for example; there is no reasonable expectation that they will overthrow the government(s) in charge, but they are able to fight back and create civil unrest until things are changed.

I don't really know how far it should go with what we can own (can we buy tanks, for example). I just know that at the very least, we have the right to have unrestricted to the basics.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 30, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Funny thing, back in those day, the military arms were the same as the arms that the people used. It could also be interpreted by a stretch that the founder fathers intended that the people have the same arms as any standing army. Of course nowadays, there is a big difference the arms of civilians and those of the military.


 
I don't think it's any "stretch" at all. AFAIC, the most protected firearm in existence should be the select-fire M-16 since that IS what our military is using.

This issue came up in U.S. v. Miller in 1939 when a man was charged (under the unconstitutional NFA of '34) with unlawful possession of a "short-barreled" shotgun. Miller claimed that this law interferred with his 2A-rights. 
Unfortunately, Miller's lawyer never even showed up when it came time to argue before the USSC and they ruled against him
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm

It's too bad his lawyer couldn't be bothered to appear or he might have been able to tell the court what a "Trench Gun" was (I'm sure there were plenty of "doughboys" slogging through trenches in France carrying shotguns with barrels less than 18")


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 5, 2008)

-Bump-

This link is to the brief that was filed by D.C.  I'm only up through page 17 but I already feel like I'm going to puke...gun-grabbing bastards :rpo:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/petitioners-brief-in-dc-v-heller.pdf


----------



## Doc_Jude (Jan 5, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> I don't think it's any "stretch" at all. AFAIC, the most protected firearm in existence should be the select-fire M-16 since that IS what our military is using.


Correct. Anyone that reads the Federalist Papers & the writings of the Framers understands that the 2nd Amendment was written exactly as it was to protect the People's ability to defend themselves from unjust rule, oppressive government, foreign invasion, and criminal elements. 
Besides the fact that most civilians owned weapons that were better than what was being issued to the Organized Militia or Standing Armies.



> It's too bad his lawyer couldn't be bothered to appear or he might have been able to tell the court what a "Trench Gun" was (I'm sure there were plenty of "doughboys" slogging through trenches in France carrying shotguns with barrels less than 18")


Word.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 5, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> -Bump-
> 
> This link is to the brief that was filed by D.C.  I'm only up through page 17 but I already feel like I'm going to puke...gun-grabbing bastards :rpo:
> 
> http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/petitioners-brief-in-dc-v-heller.pdf






Based upon the table of contents and a glance through the document, if the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia. I will be calling my representative and senator to explain to them that if they grant the electoral college and or representation to those in DC they are in violation of the US Constitution. As ruled and extrapolated by the US Supreme Court. 

I think if enough people complain that their ruling has now opened a door to nullify the Constitution completely in D.C. it might make people open their eyes and look and think. 

Also, if it is required to have a state militia I wonder if they will allow for the old volunteers to come back. Heck if I have to go out and practice every weekend or a couple of times a month to be able to have a M4 in my house as a part of a regulated militia to be able to have hand guns. 

I still need to read more, but I also agree that it is not looking good.

Very sad now.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 5, 2008)

Ok under further reading and understanding this is the arguement to present to the US Supreme Court by the DC of Columbia.

I still do not believe it should be an arguement of not applying at all. If that is true it is a very slippery slope of what does apply and what does not apply. I understand it states State Militia, yet if it comes own to this, then would the states then be required to have a state militia.I am not talking about the National Guard because it has National in the title, it is not a state milita, no matter where the money comes from. in my opion.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 5, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> Ok under further reading and understanding this is the arguement to present to the US Supreme Court by the DC of Columbia.



Yes, that is correct. It is just a brief, it is not a ruling. General rule of thumb is that the brief from each side will present an extreme point of view from that side, and a the court will rule in favor of one or the other, but in a more middle of the road, objective format.

The brief sounds really bad, but it doesn't mean crap until the SC rules on it, thank goodness. We just have to hope that the court operates with some integrity.


----------



## tellner (Jan 5, 2008)

Forget the firearm by Mattel. I'll take one of those Marine Corps bolt guns with the nice glass on top and a new short barreled Mossberg.


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 13, 2008)

From the firearms coalition:



> In typical, "screw your friends and appease your enemies," Republicanfashion, the Bush Justice Department has filed an amicus briefdefending the DC gun ban in the DC v. Heller case currently before theSupreme Court.  The Justice Department calls on the Court toacknowledge the Second Amendment as an individual right, but asks thatthe Circuit Court's decision in the case be reversed and remanded(thrown out and sent back to the Circuit Court) with instructions todetermine whether DC's laws unreasonably restrict resident's abilityto exercise their rights.  It appears that the "pro-gun," RepublicanDepartment of Justice fears that any decision from the Supreme Courtwhich held that banning any class of weapons was an infringement ofthe Second Amendment, might open the door to challenges against banson dreaded machineguns.
> 
> It is worth noting that Congress recognized back in 1934 that banningmachineguns would be a violation of the Second Amendment so theyinstead devised a plan whereby they could control such firearms withburdensome taxes and paperwork restrictions.  It was not until 1986that the first ever federal firearms ban was enacted when NRA accepteda ban on private purchase or possession of any newly manufacturedmachineguns as an amendment to the McClure-Volkmer, Firearms Owner'sProtection Act.  At that time, NRA-ILA chief, Wayne LaPierre declaredthat repeal of the machinegun ban would be NRA's top priority in thenext session of Congress.  Even though Mr. LaPierre has been the ChiefExecutive Officer of the organization for more than 15 years now andreceives a compensation totaling more than a million dollars a year,no bill to repeal the '86 ban has ever been put forward by NRA.
> 
> If the Supreme Court follows the government's request in this matter,no firm decision about the practical value of the Second Amendmentcould be expected for at least another four years; many thousands ofdollars, and at least two new Justices from now.    Republicanpoliticians and operatives across the country need to hear and feelthe wrath of GunVoters over this latest in a long list of betrayalsfrom our oh-so-reliable, pro-gun friends.  Write to the President, theVice-President, your Republican Senators and Representatives, yourlocal Republican officials and your County Central Committee and letthem know that your anger will be reflected at the ballot box.  Thisis just another example of why Republicans like Rudy Giuliani, MittRomney, and John McCain are completely unacceptable presidentialcandidates and why Republicans are likely to lose the Presidency andadditional Congressional seats due to a poor showing from GunVoters inthe coming elections.


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 15, 2008)

In other news (or not)

On January 9, a California appeals court struck down San Francisco's
2005 ban on handguns, citing that local governments lack authority
under California law to enact such a banYet while the San Francisco
Chronicle's Bob Egelko covered the story on January 10, I'm having
trouble finding any coverage elsewhere in the media. When searching
Nexis, I found no coverage of the San Francisco gun ban story in the
New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, nor broadcast networks
ABC, CBS, or NBC



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/01/14/san-francisco-handgun-ban-overturned-msm-yawn


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 18, 2008)

> So much for the old saw that Republican politicians, if only they
> could, would get rid of all of those unconstitutional federal gun
> laws, but we just need to be patient until they are in a position to
> do so. Now, when a case is before the Supreme Court, and they actually
> ...



http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/sr-bad-law.htm


----------



## Monadnock (Feb 8, 2008)

in a sudden change of events...



> Bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate say they are behind gun owners in a landmark Supreme Court case. The court next month will hear arguments in a challenge to the District's ban on handguns, the most important gun rights case at the Supreme Court in 70 years. Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives have signed onto a brief that urges the justices to strike down the ban and assert that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns for their protection.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080208/METRO/687727763/1004http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5523693.htmlhttp://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=7840090&nav=menu227_2


----------



## thardey (Feb 8, 2008)

I'll keep my fingers crossed!
Thanks for the update


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 8, 2008)

I wonder if this would have happened if it wasn't an election year...

from the same article (emphasis is mine):


> The Bush administration also supports individual gun rights. *But the administration said governments still may impose reasonable restrictions* on gun ownership and asked the justices to send the case back to lower courts without deciding whether the handgun ban fails that test.
> 
> Mrs. Hutchison and Sen. Jon Tester, Montana Democrat, who also signed the brief, agreed that *some restrictions are valid, citing their support for banning assault weapons.*


 
and here we see the bull ****.  "You can have _those_, but it's perfectly "reasonable" for us not to allow you to have _these_."


----------



## Monadnock (Feb 9, 2008)

You think this would be a key talking point but I haven't heard it come up once in any of the debates...

Here's some more analysis. I think I want to get this book...



> On Monday, the brief for Respondent was filed in DC v. Heller, theSupreme Court's case involving the DC handgun banThe first portionsof each brief raise textual and historical arguments. DC argues thatthe preamble of the Second Amendment ("a well-regulated militia")controls and limits the main clause ("the right of the people"). DCemphasizes that militias are subject to limitless state control. TheHeller brief offers well-known rules of construction from the FoundingEra to argue that a preamble doesn't limit the main clause. Both sidesquote Marbury v. Madison. The Heller brief contains a great deal ofAmerican history, partly based on David Young's new book The Founders'View of the Right to Bear Arms (2007), which presents General Gage'sdisarmament of the citizens of Boston as one of the key causes of thedecision of Americans to finally resort to armed revolution, and asthe kind of abuse which the Founders wanted to prevent in the newnationhttp://volokh.com/posts/1202366725.shtml


----------



## Monadnock (Feb 9, 2008)

> Vice President Cheney signed on to a brief filed by a majority ofCongress yesterday that urged the Supreme Court to uphold a rulingthat the District of Columbia's handgun ban is unconstitutional,breaking with his own administration's official position. Cheneyjoined 55 senators and 250 House members in asking the court to findthat the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possessfirearms and to uphold a lower court's ruling that the D.C. banviolates that right. That position is at odds with the one put forwardby the administration, which angered gun rights advocates when itsuggested that the justices return the case to lower courts forfurther review. In order to make his dramatic break with theadministration, Cheney invoked his rarely used status as part ofCongress, joining the brief as "President of the United States Senate,Richard B. Cheney." It is a position he has used at times to make thepoint that he is sometimes part of the legislative branch andsometimes part of the executive.


 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020803802.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.startribune.com/nation/15457966.html


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 9, 2008)

Wow... I really respect that Mr. Cheney was willing to do that. This is topic is so hot; I really hope that this goes the right way. Losing our 2nd amendment rights as an individual right would lead to the slow but sure desimation of our freedoms in this country. The right to bear arms amounts to so much more in regards to individual freedom that go far beyond the "gun issue." The reason it is so encompassing is because it makes a statement based on principle. If we maintain the individual rights of self-defense and bearing arms, then in principle we are saying that we stand behind inaleinable individual human rights over a collective ideal. In doing so, we remain free. If we abolish this right, then we are saying in principle that we are willing to forego individual rights in favor of a collective ideal. This may seem good on the surface, but history tells us that this is a very dangerous proposition, as we have seen from ancient civilizations to the Stalinism and Nazism, all the way to oppressive regimes that we see today.

If we aren't free, then none of the greater good stuff will matter... and none of it will have a point at all...

C.


----------



## Monadnock (Feb 22, 2008)

> The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment securesa right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants statesthe power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter viewis called the "collective rights" theory. A collective rights decisionby the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered intostatehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived atArticle I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the UnitedStates entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approvedthe right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing theright of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right. Therewas no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible toa collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contractunderstood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declaredMontana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms (Third itemon page.)


[URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/646772049&template=nextpage"]http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/646772049&template=nextpage[/URL]


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 22, 2008)

Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it. 
Hitler's socialist party when they came into power one of the first things they did was remove all the personal weapons from the German citizens. 

Wonder why was that?


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 22, 2008)

Monadnock said:


> [URL]http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/646772049&template=nextpage[/URL]


 
Thanks, that's some very interesting reading.

I'm encouraged that apparently some people do remember the concept of state-sovereignty/state's rights.  

One thing's for sure, it'll be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out.


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 2, 2008)

I was browsing though one of my "quote" files earlier...
Given the "collective rights" theory that many enemies of liberty like to espouse (that is, the theory that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to those serving in the military or national-guard), I found this quote particularly thought provoking considering the source.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state." *Heinrich Himmler*


----------



## grydth (Mar 2, 2008)

Ah, the needs based theory...

In the Land of the Free, what I most certainly do not need is a government functionary deciding what I need.

Oh, and "collective rights" translates into "no rights".


----------



## Lisa (Mar 2, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> I was browsing though one of my "quote" files earlier...
> Given the "collective rights" theory that many enemies of liberty like to espouse (that is, the theory that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to those serving in the military or national-guard), I found this quote particularly thought provoking considering the source.
> 
> "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state." *Heinrich Himmler*




Theres a scary thought.  Lets give up your right to bear arms and model yourselves after Nazi Germany.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 2, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> I was browsing though one of my "quote" files earlier...
> Given the "collective rights" theory that many enemies of liberty like to espouse (that is, the theory that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to those serving in the military or national-guard), I found this quote particularly thought provoking considering the source.
> 
> "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state." *Heinrich Himmler*



On the collective rights thought, I would not mind having the same weapons the military has. I mean to have laser guided projectiles and the capability to own a tank that is functional. Heck I would buy one and drive it tow work. Talk about an anti-driving-road-rage vehicle.  

But those are my thoughts. :angel:


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 2, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> I mean to have laser guided projectiles and the capability to own a tank that is functional. Heck I would buy one and drive it tow work. Talk about an anti-driving-road-rage vehicle.
> 
> But those are my thoughts. :angel:


 
Please... you couldn't afford the gas to get it one way.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 2, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Please... you couldn't afford the gas to get it one way.




SHHH! I think the banks are looking for people with credit that are not over extended to offer them loans. I could take a second mortgage to get it to work and and third to get it home.   

But it would be fun. I was actually in a FOX on main roads for about 4 miles from one location to another and you would not believe the safe zone everyone offered us.  :angel:


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 19, 2008)

The arguments have been heard...

I am really NOT impressed with Gura (the lawyer on the pro-freedom side), and I'd really like to beat up Dellinger (the anti-freedom representative).

Justices Scalia and Kennedy are hillarious.

here's the transcript...enjoy
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf


----------



## Monadnock (Mar 19, 2008)

Good stuff! Some parts had me laughing -- at the outright stupidity of Dellinger.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 19, 2008)

I suspect that the SCOTUS justices have already made up their minds.  

Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy will vote in the affirmative, that the Second Amendment is an individual right.  

Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and Souter will vote in the nay column, asserting that the Constitution does not apply to individuals.  

5-4 decision coming your way (in favor of the Second Amendment) in June.    Good timing, since O'Connor would have been a swing vote, instead of Alito's solid pro-2nd vote.


----------



## tellner (Mar 19, 2008)

So far they all seem to be leaning towards the "2AM is a real individual right". The differences seem to be over what restrictions can be placed on that right. 

The Bush Administration's official representative - you know, the gun-loving GOP - is coming out in favor of a triangulated position that would do the Senator from New York proud. Yes, it'a an individual right. But no, the ban should stay as it is a perfectly reasonable restriction. 

As for the Constitution applying to individuals, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Clarence "Uncle" Thomas never opens his mouth and does whatever Scalia tells him. He and his massa have already declared themselves unfit to be on the Court by stating that the Bible (as opposed to the Constitution) is the highest authority and that the government gets its fundamental authority from G-d rather than the consent of the governed. They are violating their oaths every day they sit there.

Bush's wholly-owned Court has worked consistently against the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Ammendments, defecated on the idea othe Separation of Powers and engaged in the most blatant conflicts of interest I have ever heard of on the High Court. Scalia refused to recuse himself in a case involving personal friends and one in which a relative was making arguments before the Court.

But it doesn't matter. As long as they say the "correct" things about guns they're sticking up for the Constitution. 

Color me unimpressed.


----------



## Scarey (Mar 21, 2008)

One thing to say: Liberty or Death.

The reason the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, is so we can defend ourselves from the government. To take that right away is exactly the kind of offense that calls for armed resistance. Never mind the fact that we've already let them take away most of our civil liberties. It has to stop somewhere. Like Heston expressed, if they want our guns they should have to pry them from our cold dead hands. There is no point in living life as a subject.


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 27, 2008)

For anyone interested, this site has a list of all the briefs filed in support of either side.  Clicking on the individual links will take you to a PDF file of the brief.
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 27, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> For anyone interested, this site has a list of all the briefs filed in support of either side. Clicking on the individual links will take you to a PDF file of the brief.
> http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html


 
Thanks KenpoTex.


----------

