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.
Vote Now - Recent Supreme Court Ruling
kimi
Member Posts: 44,719 ✭✭✭
Rule: One vote per person that states whether or not you are "more satisfied" with the recent supreme court ruling regarding the 2nd Amendment, or whether you are "not satisfied" with the subject ruling. After casting your vote, if you so desire, feel free to indicate the reason(s) why you are "more satisfied" or "not satisfied" with it.
What's next?
Comments
Could have been worse if they allowed the bans and restrictions.[xx(]
So I am pleased but not overwhelmingly.
We now have on record, and modern precedent, that the SCOTUS considers the 2nd. Amendment as an "individual" right, and not connected to "militia" service.
Other than that, I think there will be a long shaking out period, and many more lawsuits to be filed to fill in the blanks per se.
Hunter Mag & Marc. Sticking to the "rule" as noted, are you "more satisfied" with the ruling, as opposed to the "not satisfied"? which of the two possible answers best suit you?
You're a tough one![8D]
I guess more satisfied, simply because I would be "less" satisfied if they would have ruled the other way, and not declared it to be an individual right.
Short and sweet,.......without all of the other things I could bring up. It is what it is, and that is what I am responding to.
You sure you aren't an attorney? Yes, or no, with no extrapolation allowed![:D]
Now, as Scalia noted, the hard part comes in defining exactly what the Heller decision means. Undoubtably DC and other cities will try to impose all sorts of burdensome regulations and ridiculousness. And those regulations and exemptions will be challenged one by one, and any decent federal court will have Heller breathing down its neck. The vast majority of those court cases are going to be decided on the pro-gun rights side.
I would ask those who are so critical of Heller what exactly you wanted? Wait, I know the answer: the Supreme Court should have said that there are absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on firearms ownership or use. If you're a twice-convicted felon, should you be allowed to carry a pistol while in jail? Yes! say the anti-Heller crowd. What if you've been in and out of mental institutions and have been arrested numerous times for violent, deranged behavior. Should you be allowed to buy a gun? Yes! say the anti-Heller crowd.
So, the anti-Heller crowd wants for the second amendment what is given for no other amendment: absolute, complete, and no restrictions. You don't get that with the freedom of speech, or religion, or press--you don't get that with anything else.
Scalia gave us a tremendous gift, and you're spitting in his face. You should be ashamed.
But with this ruling we are still in the battle. We are not even close to being out of the game. Had the ruling went totally against us, we would be packing up our gear and heading home being a defeated team.
This is stupid. People are pissing and moaning over what is really a tremendous victory. Up until Heller, the SC and the federal government defined the second amendment as a collective right. In Heller, it was affirmed as an individual right. A sea change like that is extraordinary.
Now, as Scalia noted, the hard part comes in defining exactly what the Heller decision means. Undoubtably DC and other cities will try to impose all sorts of burdensome regulations and ridiculousness. And those regulations and exemptions will be challenged one by one, and any decent federal court will have Heller breathing down its neck. The vast majority of those court cases are going to be decided on the pro-gun rights side.
I would ask those who are so critical of Heller what exactly you wanted? Wait, I know the answer: the Supreme Court should have said that there are absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on firearms ownership or use. If you're a twice-convicted felon, should you be allowed to carry a pistol while in jail? Yes! say the anti-Heller crowd. What if you've been in and out of mental institutions and have been arrested numerous times for violent, deranged behavior. Should you be allowed to buy a gun? Yes! say the anti-Heller crowd.
So, the anti-Heller crowd wants for the second amendment what is given for no other amendment: absolute, complete, and no restrictions. You don't get that with the freedom of speech, or religion, or press--you don't get that with anything else.
Scalia gave us a tremendous gift, and you're spitting in his face. You should be ashamed.
The "this is stupid" statement you made is strongly indicative of the "more satisfied" vote, and much of your ensuing remarks also justify why you voted this way. Thank you.
Compared to us getting hit with a collousal loss, a ruling against us, I am fairly happy with the ruling. Long ago I gave up on the idea that such things as Supreme Court rulings would overnight change the world to be the way I want it to be.
But with this ruling we are still in the battle. We are not even close to being out of the game. Had the ruling went totally against us, we would be packing up our gear and heading home being a defeated team.
I take this as a "more satisfied" vote than a totally "not satisfied" vote, correct me if I am wrong, please.
I am disappointed in society the whole mess had to go to the supreme court for a decision. 3rd grade students have some commons sense whereas some most politicians don't.
Would you be more specfic in your answer to the question that I have asked of everyone, select-fire? Are you "more satisfied" with the ruling as opposed to the "not satisfied"?
Not satisfied, because the SCROTUS has now codified into stone, that the government has the authority and duty to regulate who, what, where, when and how an American Citizen can exercise what used to be a fundamental enumerated "right" and which now, is a government controlled/granted "privilege" to keep and bear arms.
The SCROTUS decision completely fails to recognize and therefore nullifies the "shall not be infringed" part of Amendment II, which is the cornerstone of the entire amendment.
It is that simple.
Not satisfied.
Not satisfied, because the SCROTUS has now codified into stone, that the government has the authority and duty to regulate who, what, where, when and how an American Citizen can exercise what used to be a fundamental enumerated "right and which now is a government controlled/granted "privilege" to keep and bear arms.
The SCROTUS decision completely fails to recognize and therefore nullifies the "shall not be infringed" part of Amendment II, which is the cornerstone of the entire amendment.
It is that simple.
Thank you for your direct approach.
Not satisfied.
Not satisfied, because the SCROTUS has now codified into stone, that the government has the authority and duty to regulate who, what, where, when and how an American Citizen can exercise what used to be a fundamental enumerated "right and which now is a government controlled/granted "privilege" to keep and bear arms.
The SCROTUS decision completely fails to recognize and therefore nullifies the "shall not be infringed" part of Amendment II, which is the cornerstone of the entire amendment.
It is that simple.
+1
same answer.
FORMS OF FIREARM LEGISLATION
Regulating the Carrying of Weapons
The earliest antecedent of firearm regulation among English-speaking people was the development of the English common law which held it a crime against the public peace to ride or go about with dangerous or unusual weapons. This common law principle was later enacted into statute in 1328 by the Statute of Northampton.[1] Among the first enactments of many of our states were provisions concerning weapons, which modified or enlarged upon this early English law. For example, the Criminal Code of the Province of Massachusetts, adopted in 1692-3,[2] provided that justices of the peace could arrest any person riding or going about armed offensively, could commit him to prison until sureties were found for the peace, and could forfeit [Page 401] his armor and weapons. This law was re?nacted, except for the forfeiture provision, in 1795, after Massachusetts became a state.[3]
These early statutes either made it unlawful to carry certain weapons such as pistols, dirks, and bowie knives, exempting certain classes of persons, such as peace officers, and exempting certain places, as the owner's premises or place of business; or provided that it was unlawful to carry weapons "concealed"; or prohibited certain persons, such as minors, from carrying weapons; or prohibited the carriage of weapons in certain places. Most of these statutes were soon challenged as unconstitutional, but almost invariably they were upheld.[4] The first volume of Alabama Supreme Court Reports recorded the case of State v. Reid,[5] decided at Montgomery in 1840. The Alabama statute prohibiting the carrying of any species of concealed firearms about the person was upheld in this case. In 1831, shortly after Indiana became a state, a statute similar to that of Alabama was enacted, which, when questioned, was upheld by the Indiana Supreme Court.[6] In 1839 the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the local firearm statute which made it a misdemeanor to wear a pistol, dirk or other concealed weapon except on a journey.[7] This form of firearm regulation is contained in the Uniform Firearms Act and in many present state statutes.
I am very happy for the way the vote went regarding the supreme courts interpretation of the individual rgiht contained in the 2nd amendment but am dissatisfied with the heavy grey cloud it was delivered in.
Sorry I couldn't be more direct.
Satisfied but not satisfied.
I am very happy for the way the vote went regarding the supreme courts interpretation of the individual rgiht contained in the 2nd amendment but am dissatisfied with the heavy grey cloud it was delivered in.
Sorry I couldn't be more direct.
No problem, MVP, you were quite to the point of the "more satisfied" than the "not satisfied" in your earlier statement regarding this issue.
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Hunter Mag & Marc. Sticking to the "rule" as noted, are you "more satisfied" with the ruling, as opposed to the "not satisfied"? which of the two possible answers best suit you?
You're a tough one![8D]
I guess more satisfied, simply because I would be "less" satisfied if they would have ruled the other way, and not declared it to be an individual right.
Short and sweet,.......without all of the other things I could bring up. It is what it is, and that is what I am responding to.
You sure you aren't an attorney? Yes, or no, with no extrapolation allowed![:D]
[:D] I hear you Marc, and I am also in 100% agreement with you as well. I'm far too poor to be an attorney! [:D]