In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Big Win For Gun Rights
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
Not perfect, I doubt Supreme Court Rulings ever are, but still a major, major win for gun rights. So much for those here who have long been preaching that the only way to start to take back our constitutional rights is through armed rebellion. If done right with determination, hard work and working through the political process, this SCOTUS decision is proof that we are not at a point whereas we need armed rebellion. Story below:
Supreme Court Throws Out Handgun Ban
WASHINGTON (June 26) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
Landmark Decision
In a 5-4 decision, The Supreme Court ruled that the Washington, D.C., ban on handguns is unconstitutional. The court hadn't conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. Here, gun rights advocates react to the ruling outside the court Thursday.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.
Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
Supreme Court Throws Out Handgun Ban
WASHINGTON (June 26) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
Landmark Decision
In a 5-4 decision, The Supreme Court ruled that the Washington, D.C., ban on handguns is unconstitutional. The court hadn't conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. Here, gun rights advocates react to the ruling outside the court Thursday.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.
Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
Comments
I'm just surprised TR being the observant agnostic that he is didn't see the other thirty posts about it.
im just yanking your chain TR [:o)]
like cgr said, this can be posted a thousand times and I don't mind.
I'm just surprised TR being the observant agnostic that he is didn't see the other thirty posts about it.
im just yanking your chain TR [:o)]
I am in such a good mood that you can yank all you want and I won't mind today.[;)]
The Question is Now this:
What other rights (amendments) would be in jeopardy that the court could/would be so damned close to repealing?
Its a perilous highway that lends future decisions of Constitutional Rights possibly being stripped from the People who the Constitution is in place to Protect.
What if there had been one more Liberal on that Court today?
How do you see it?
Had it been a 7-2 decision, a lot of liberal-ish, liberetarian leaning people would feel much safer about electing him - but now- are having thoughts about McCain, and how he is a "maverick" and perhaps not like Bush.
Think of that very hard when someone tells you that it doesn't matter who wins the next election because John McCain isn't a "perfect" conservative.
BINGO! The next president is going to have the power to shift the balance of the Supreme Court one way or the other...McCain will keep the court conservative while Obamma Hussein will appoint a liberal, gun hating justice.
like cgr said, this can be posted a thousand times and I don't mind.
like a kyplumber said cgr said!!!!
We're all just in a happy happy mood today. Well there was some arguing in that RIA thread.....but really were just happy
Bullcrap! That this decision got four dissenting votes just proves that this country is going to hell on greased skids.
quote:Originally posted by gruntled
Think of that very hard when someone tells you that it doesn't matter who wins the next election because John McCain isn't a "perfect" conservative.
BINGO! The next president is going to have the power to shift the balance of the Supreme Court one way or the other...McCain will keep the court conservative while Obamma Hussein will appoint a liberal, gun hating justice.
How do you figure that McPain will keep the court conservative? Everything about him suggests he MUST appoint radical judges. What is t that he has done that makes you think he would appoint conservatives??
I can certainly empathize with those already beaten into the dirt by the government seeing this as a huge win.
Already accepting the fatherly hand of big government for their security and protection, no doubt this will further reassure them that no `undesirables' will henceforth possess firearm with wich to threaten them.regulations being the ONLY thing that stands between them and being shot down in the streets, will-nilly.
Regulations by the government being a VERY good thing, you see.
No..AMERICANS won nothing today. Quislings won big.
By the way...mcain is braggibg about voting for that ugly female troll that sets on the supreme court...sorta blows that theory clear out of the water.
This is a temporary pass.
4 MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, who are sworn to uphold and protect the constitution voted in favor of government managed tyranny.
Amazing, this is being called a WIN. 4 people who should care about nothing except the sanctity of the country voted to sell you down the river, and now, here we are, Joe American gun owner who is happier than a pig in s-h-*-t because of it.
quote:Originally posted by Chris8161
quote:Originally posted by gruntled
Think of that very hard when someone tells you that it doesn't matter who wins the next election because John McCain isn't a "perfect" conservative.
BINGO! The next president is going to have the power to shift the balance of the Supreme Court one way or the other...McCain will keep the court conservative while Obamma Hussein will appoint a liberal, gun hating justice.
How do you figure that McPain will keep the court conservative? Everything about him suggests he MUST appoint radical judges. What is t that he has done that makes you think he would appoint conservatives??
Are we to assume you'd be taking a better chance by voting Obama in?
Think about the consequenses of your actions before you ACT!
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Chris8161
quote:Originally posted by gruntled
Think of that very hard when someone tells you that it doesn't matter who wins the next election because John McCain isn't a "perfect" conservative.
BINGO! The next president is going to have the power to shift the balance of the Supreme Court one way or the other...McCain will keep the court conservative while Obamma Hussein will appoint a liberal, gun hating justice.
How do you figure that McPain will keep the court conservative? Everything about him suggests he MUST appoint radical judges. What is t that he has done that makes you think he would appoint conservatives??
Are we to assume you'd be taking a better chance by voting Obama in?
Think about the consequenses of your actions before you ACT!
Im not talking about Obama, numb nuts. I asked a question about MCPAIN. Question once again is what has McPain done that makes you think he will appoint conservative judges?
Obama has NOTHING to do with that very simple question.
quote:Originally posted by RogueStatesman
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Chris8161
quote:Originally posted by gruntled
Think of that very hard when someone tells you that it doesn't matter who wins the next election because John McCain isn't a "perfect" conservative.
BINGO! The next president is going to have the power to shift the balance of the Supreme Court one way or the other...McCain will keep the court conservative while Obamma Hussein will appoint a liberal, gun hating justice.
How do you figure that McPain will keep the court conservative? Everything about him suggests he MUST appoint radical judges. What is t that he has done that makes you think he would appoint conservatives??
Are we to assume you'd be taking a better chance by voting Obama in?
Think about the consequenses of your actions before you ACT!
Im not talking about Obama, numb nuts. I asked a question about MCPAIN. Question once again is what has McPain done that makes you think he will appoint conservative judges?
Obama has NOTHING to do with that very simple question.
You're an Idiot! Pure and Simple!!
Yes...this is great news, we one the battle on that one. It was a five to four vote, close call. Just hope we win the war on this one.
You are correct...... This Battle was won, but the war is far from over. New tactics are coming........
How dare those 4 call themslves Americans.
They should be sent over to Afganistan on a styrofoam raft !
How dare those 4 call themslves Americans.
They should be sent over to Afganistan on a styrofoam raft !Well, you have four conservatives and four liberals and one that can go either way.
- The D.C. handgun ban will be reversed and Mr. Heller will be granted his license from the local D.C. Kommisar to keep his handgun assemled and loaded in HIS OWN HOME.
- A watered down D.C. ban will undoubtedly be on its way very soon(probably a Kalifornia-style ban restricting certain handgun models for "safety" reasons).
- Pro-gun lawyers will file a slew of gun rights lawsuits, most of which will never see the light of day since they will be immediately shot down by Liberal activist judges.
- Stricter gun laws will be passed by moderate states, modelling themselves on a "kinder, gentler" approach to restricting guns as opposed to outright banning them.
- In 20 years, the NRA will celebrate the anniversary of this "landmark" Supreme Court decision... meanwhile, on that day thousands of people will visit the few remaining gun shops around the country... they will inspect the small inventory of "authorized" guns that the government has approved for sale... those that have the several thousands of dollars needed to purchase one of these guns will fill out the lengthy licensing and background check forms, the required mental health examination, and the DNA swab... and after a 120 day waiting period, they will be allowed to pick up their new handgun... complete with smart-gun ID verification features... magazine, trigger, and grip disconnects... and a maximum 5-round capacity magazine.
The Cliff Notes version...
- The D.C. handgun ban will be reversed and Mr. Heller will be granted his license from the local D.C. Kommisar to keep his handgun assemled and loaded in HIS OWN HOME.
- A watered down D.C. ban will undoubtedly be on its way very soon(probably a Kalifornia-style ban restricting certain handgun models for "safety" reasons).
- Pro-gun lawyers will file a slew of gun rights lawsuits, most of which will never see the light of day since they will be immediately shot down by Liberal activist judges.
- Stricter gun laws will be passed by moderate states, modelling themselves on a "kinder, gentler" approach to restricting guns as opposed to outright banning them.
- In 20 years, the NRA will celebrate the anniversary of this "landmark" Supreme Court decision... meanwhile, on that day thousands of people will visit the few remaining gun shops around the country... they will inspect the small inventory of "authorized" guns that the government has approved for sale... those that have the several thousands of dollars needed to purchase one of these guns will fill out the lengthy licensing and background check forms, the required mental health examination, and the DNA swab... and after a 120 day waiting period, they will be allowed to pick up their new handgun... complete with smart-gun ID verification features... magazine, trigger, and grip disconnects... and a maximum 5-round capacity magazine.
Wow woundedwolf... the guys in the gun rights forum have turned helped turn you from a wet behind the ears NRA supporting pro-gun compromiser into a full blooded American. Welcome![:D]
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
The Cliff Notes version...
- The D.C. handgun ban will be reversed and Mr. Heller will be granted his license from the local D.C. Kommisar to keep his handgun assemled and loaded in HIS OWN HOME.
- A watered down D.C. ban will undoubtedly be on its way very soon(probably a Kalifornia-style ban restricting certain handgun models for "safety" reasons).
- Pro-gun lawyers will file a slew of gun rights lawsuits, most of which will never see the light of day since they will be immediately shot down by Liberal activist judges.
- Stricter gun laws will be passed by moderate states, modelling themselves on a "kinder, gentler" approach to restricting guns as opposed to outright banning them.
- In 20 years, the NRA will celebrate the anniversary of this "landmark" Supreme Court decision... meanwhile, on that day thousands of people will visit the few remaining gun shops around the country... they will inspect the small inventory of "authorized" guns that the government has approved for sale... those that have the several thousands of dollars needed to purchase one of these guns will fill out the lengthy licensing and background check forms, the required mental health examination, and the DNA swab... and after a 120 day waiting period, they will be allowed to pick up their new handgun... complete with smart-gun ID verification features... magazine, trigger, and grip disconnects... and a maximum 5-round capacity magazine.
Wow woundedwolf... the guys in the gun rights forum have turned helped turn you from a wet behind the ears NRA supporting pro-gun compromiser into a full blooded American. Welcome![:D]
So you are basically calling wounded wolf a follower of the gun rights forum guys?
It should have been a 9-0 ruling.....not a 5-4.
How dare those 4 call themslves Americans.
They should be sent over to Afganistan on a styrofoam raft !
Via the Pacific Ocean, and then tied to an anchor just above the Mariana Trench.
MVP, we don't have any followers over in Gun Rights, only LEADERS.
Yes! I like the sound of that.[:D]
Senior Member
USA
1414 Posts
Posted - 06/29/2008 : 11:42:28 PM
MVP, we don't have any followers over in Gun Rights, only LEADERS.
Wounded Wolf !! Were I an emotional man, I would weep over this true statement !!
The cult followers will NEVER UNDERSTAND THE UTTER TRUTH OF YOUR POST !!
They are so used to following, they cannot comprehend a man that listens a bit, investigates for himself...and DRAWS HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS !!
INDEPENDENCE is a foreign, dirty evil word to the cult followers...the NRA force-fed, Beast-lovers out there...
Thank you, Sir..for becoming a 'rugged individual'.
quote:WoundedWolf
Senior Member
USA
1414 Posts
Posted - 06/29/2008 : 11:42:28 PM
MVP, we don't have any followers over in Gun Rights, only LEADERS.
Wounded Wolf !! Were I an emotional man, I would weep over this true statement !!
The cult followers will NEVER UNDERSTAND THE UTTER TRUTH OF YOUR POST !!
They are so used to following, they cannot comprehend a man that listens a bit, investigates for himself...and DRAWS HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS !!
INDEPENDENCE is a foreign, dirty evil word to the cult followers...the NRA force-fed, Beast-lovers out there...
Thank you, Sir..for becoming a 'rugged individual'.
Oh, Ok... I get it.
There are about 10 true leaders of the firearms community all huddled together in the politics forum 'rugged individuals'.
The rest of the firearms community are cult followers who view INDEPENDENCE as a foreign, dirty evil word...the NRA force-fed, Beast-lovers who cannot comprehend a man that listens a bit, investigates for himself...and DRAWS HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS !!
OK... Got it, I think I understand where you guys are coming from...
I am not really sorry if you are insulted.
20,000 +++ gun laws..and EVERY federal gun law..stack that up against "Shall Not be Infringed".
Where does that leave you in the scheme of things ?
MVP;
I am not really sorry if you are insulted.
20,000 +++ gun laws..and EVERY federal gun law..stack that up against "Shall Not be Infringed".
Where does that leave you in the scheme of things ?
And I am not insulted in the least.
I know where I stand and what I am active in and it is not anti firearm. I had no hand in the passing of 20,000 gun laws and hate them as much as you do.
I also will not back myself into a corner with only one ultimatum, but will try anything that helps restore gun rights. Even if it is the undoing of one law at a time.
And why not? It's the Constitution. You see, we gun owners do not need to fight this "a little at a time." Let the politicians pratice incrementalism. No, we ALL need to stand up and say, DAMMIT, the 2nd amendment states "...shall not be infringed." No regulations, no restricitons. Anything less is unacceptable. Period.
I also will not back myself into a corner with only one ultimatum
And why not? It's the Constitution. You see, we gun owners do not need to fight this "a little at a time." Let the politicians pratice incrementalism. No, we ALL need to stand up and say, DAMMIT, the 2nd amendment states "...shall not be infringed." No regulations, no restricitons. Anything less is unacceptable. Period.
Have you tried taking your ultimatum to court with a Lawsuit?
Advanced Member;
Just terrible..isn't it. You are being exposed to some information..perhaps for the first time in your life.
Amazing how some people can get to be middle -aged and never learned a thing except how to make money.
MVP;
I am beyond 'one law at a time'.
I refuse to play their game any more.
You see ..it is rather one-dimensional to only concentrate on gun laws.
Doing so ..and fighting each law, one at a time...allows the Elitists a fertile ground in which to plant their seed of destruction.
While you roll back ONE law ..they have passed another dozen or so taking away rights in ANOTHER direction.
You see me hammering on gun rights ALWAYS...I do so because I cannot spread myself all across the spectrum of government intrusions into our daily lives. Just because I do Not do so does not mean I am ignorant of those intrusions..
The road to tyranny has passed over the crest of the hill...and America is picking up steam each day.
mateomasfeo
Advanced Member;
Just terrible..isn't it. You are being exposed to some information..perhaps for the first time in your life.
Amazing how some people can get to be middle -aged and never learned a thing except how to make money.
MVP;
I am beyond 'one law at a time'.
I refuse to play their game any more.
You see ..it is rather one-dimensional to only concentrate on gun laws.
Doing so ..and fighting each law, one at a time...allows the Elitists a fertile ground in which to plant their seed of destruction.
While you roll back ONE law ..they have passed another dozen or so taking away rights in ANOTHER direction.
You see me hammering on gun rights ALWAYS...I do so because I cannot spread myself all across the spectrum of government intrusions into our daily lives. Just because I do Not do so does not mean I am ignorant of those intrusions..
The road to tyranny has passed over the crest of the hill...and America is picking up steam each day.
HIGHBALL, you are starting to tire even me with your one-note-holier-than-thou-schite-sandwich.
And I mostly agree with your statements regarding the decision!!
When trying to convince folks don't beat 'em over the head and call them stupid! Find a way to motivate/educate people to follow your lead.
Re-evaluate your attitude. Your message is becoming obscured by the fog of your increasing frustration...
And move this to the damn gun rights forum!!
[:X]
Please move this to the Gun Rights forums so the leaders can read it.
I have reviewed the post, it may remain where it is.
I have reviewed the post,
Bet your mouth is tired.
Naaaahh...
[;)]
HIGHBALL, you are starting to tire even me with your one-note-holier-than-thou-schite-sandwich.
And I mostly agree with your statements regarding the decision!!
When trying to convince folks don't beat 'em over the head and call them stupid! Find a way to motivate/educate people to follow your lead.
Re-evaluate your attitude. Your message is becoming obscured by the fog of your increasing frustration...
And move this to the damn gun rights forum!!
[:X]
Tired? take a nap! It is the presentation that is so important. If there is anyone to blame for my lingering around this forum it is Highball. You may wonder why, so I'll tell ya. I don't believe in compromise either it is his hard line approach that made me "wake up" so to speak. My personal belief is that HB is doing all of us a service, not too many people take the time to even give a damn let alone try to help others.
If there is anyone to blame for my lingering around this forum it is Highball.
NOW I'm really angry with HIGHBALL!
Personally, I now find the fire and brimstone approach refreshing and instructive. That is what it took to convince me that acceptance of restriction was surrender of the right. For the strong-willed, it takes a little slap in the face every once in a while to realize the truth, as the conditioning most of us have grown up with places us in a submissive frame of mind.
We need only to look at near total control that the dissenting 4 on the court would place over us regarding what we should be allowed to own to understand how serious is the threat to gun ownership in America. We need only to look at how the supposed arch-conservative Scalia watered down the majority opinion, stating that the Constitution leaves D.C. with a 'variety of tools ...including some measure of regulating handguns.' to see that the 'individual right' statements that were made are only meant to placate those that do not want to take the time to think about what was actually decided.
This decision has confirmed that states and municipalities have tools available to regulate handguns. This, obviously, means that states and municipalities have the power to restrict our choices to a degree greater than they are restricted by Federal Law. This decision in real terms, weakens the individual right it purports to confirm.
Until everyone on this forum understands this, General Discussion is a very appropriate place for this thread.
Brad Steele