.

Heller and the NRA take DC back to court.

steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭
Heller and NRA lawyers are taking DC back to court because of limitations placed on firearms ownership after the SCOTUS decision. The DC mayor wanted to allow revolvers and not semi-auto handguns. More info at www.gopusa.com

Comments

  • Remington1981Remington1981 Member Posts: 1,431 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by steve45
    Heller and NRA lawyers are taking DC back to court because of limitations placed on firearms ownership after the SCOTUS decision. The DC mayor wanted to allow revolvers and not semi-auto handguns. More info at www.gopusa.com


    I guess the NRA won't be happy until the lose all of our rights for us!
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    They just made thousands of people who could'nt own handguns before able to have them. How do you consider that losing gun rights?
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    Steve, this is merely temporary.

    This decision actually opens the door MUCH wider to MORE gun restrictions.

    The elites are simply "regrouping" with the aid of the NRA.

    You just refuse to see it.
  • Remington1981Remington1981 Member Posts: 1,431 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by steve45
    They just made thousands of people who could'nt own handguns before able to have them. How do you consider that losing gun rights?


    Have you actually read the ruling, You probably should... I thought it was a huge wing too until I actually read the thing... Yeah they can own a hand gun as long as it is dis-assembled???????
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Remington1981
    quote:Originally posted by steve45
    They just made thousands of people who could'nt own handguns before able to have them. How do you consider that losing gun rights?


    Have you actually read the ruling, You probably should... I thought it was a huge wing too until I actually read the thing... Yeah they can own a hand gun as long as it is dis-assembled???????
    I read it. They are going after the dissassembled rule as well.
  • slumlord44slumlord44 Member Posts: 3,693 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Time will tell and the lawyers will get richer. Still think it is a step foreward. If they had said there is no individual right, then we would have been in a lot more trouble. Glass is half full, not half empty.
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,998
    edited November -1
    Still think it is a step foreward

    Glass is half full, not half empty



    BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    Still think it is a step foreward

    Glass is half full, not half empty



    BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
    I guess thats the responce were going to get when your position does'nt have a leg to stand on.
  • Remington1981Remington1981 Member Posts: 1,431 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by steve45
    quote:Originally posted by Remington1981
    quote:Originally posted by steve45
    They just made thousands of people who could'nt own handguns before able to have them. How do you consider that losing gun rights?


    Have you actually read the ruling, You probably should... I thought it was a huge wing too until I actually read the thing... Yeah they can own a hand gun as long as it is dis-assembled???????
    I read it. They are going after the dissassembled rule as well.





    Oh and I'am sure that the great NRA will claim some sort of great victory as they did in the SCOTUS ruling...All while selling our rights down the river behind closed doors
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Name a down-side to the SCOTUS ruling. Thousands of people are able to have guns that were'nt before. Your someday theories dont count.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,837 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by steve45
    Name a down-side to the SCOTUS ruling. Thousands of people are able to have guns that were'nt before. Your someday theories dont count.
    steve45:

    The downside is that the SCOTUS ruling specifically mentioned (and thus added to the U.S. Constitution) the right of a local government to:
    License Firearm Owners
    Register Firearms
    Regulate (Restrict) Firearms

    These three options are now, by precedent, a part of the Constitution. In order to eliminate any of these infringements, the Heller decision will have to, in part, be overturned.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I never said its a silver bullet. There will be lawsuits clarifying terms for years by all sides. Its putting guns in peoples hands. It does say that you cannot restrict any firearm in common use. This should keep people who want to ban semi-auto's at bay. Its a step in the right direction.
  • nyforesternyforester Member Posts: 2,574 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Frankly I am tired of all this crap. Hurry up already and start the revolution !
    Abort Cuomo
  • joshmb1982joshmb1982 Member Posts: 8,929
    edited November -1
    nyforester agreed
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,837 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by steve45
    I never said its a silver bullet. There will be lawsuits clarifying terms for years by all sides. Its putting guns in peoples hands. It does say that you cannot restrict any firearm in common use. This should keep people who want to ban semi-auto's at bay. Its a step in the right direction.
    Read more closely. It says that you cannot absolutely prevent a person from buying or owning a handgun for the purpose of self-defense in the home.

    For the purpose of self-defense in the home, provided the gun is registered.

    For the purpose of self-defense in the home, provided the owner is properly tested and licensed.

    For the purpose of self-defense in the home, provided the handgun is not one of those regulated by the many 'Constitutional Tools' (not defined) available.

    Being that it is Soundbite Season:

    The Heller decision confirms that the RTKBA is an Individual Right if you happen to be the Right Individual.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • brian-usabrian-usa Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:The downside is that the SCOTUS ruling specifically mentioned (and thus added to the U.S. Constitution) the right of a local government to:
    License Firearm Owners
    Register Firearms
    Regulate (Restrict) Firearms

    These three options are now, by precedent, a part of the Constitution. In order to eliminate any of these infringements, the Heller decision will have to, in part, be overturned.

    Don't fall into that trap. The SCOTUS issued an OPINION. They did not add anything to the U.S. Constitution, nor did their OPINION become part of the Constitution. We must never let various Judges, Senators, Congressmen, or lawyers try to claim that court rulings or opinions make law. According to the actual written Constitution, only Congress makes law. The rulings and opinions merely attempt to apply actual laws to the details in specific cases. This important point is a very strong weapon against legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, most lawyers and law schools today teach the false idea that courts make law through precedent.

    I agree that in our current situation where citizens are ignorant and believe that court rulings become part of the law, the people end up victims of those rulings via the power of law enforcement and the courts. And since they have the biggest stick, the government wins even when they are practicing without authority. We may become victims of additional unconstitutional licensing, restrictions, and regulations, but let us never go along with the idea that such unconstitutional things are law because some Judge, Senator, Congressman, or lawyer said so.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by brian-usa
    quote:The downside is that the SCOTUS ruling specifically mentioned (and thus added to the U.S. Constitution) the right of a local government to:
    License Firearm Owners
    Register Firearms
    Regulate (Restrict) Firearms

    These three options are now, by precedent, a part of the Constitution. In order to eliminate any of these infringements, the Heller decision will have to, in part, be overturned.

    Don't fall into that trap. The SCOTUS issued an OPINION. They did not add anything to the U.S. Constitution, nor did their OPINION become part of the Constitution. We must never let various Judges, Senators, Congressmen, or lawyers try to claim that court rulings or opinions make law. According to the actual written Constitution, only Congress makes law. The rulings and opinions merely attempt to apply actual laws to the details in specific cases. This important point is a very strong weapon against legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, most lawyers and law schools today teach the false idea that courts make law through precedent.

    I agree that in our current situation where citizens are ignorant and believe that court rulings become part of the law, the people end up victims of those rulings via the power of law enforcement and the courts. And since they have the biggest stick, the government wins even when they are practicing without authority. We may become victims of additional unconstitutional licensing, restrictions, and regulations, but let us never go along with the idea that such unconstitutional things are law because some Judge, Senator, Congressman, or lawyer said so.



    No the SCROTUS issued a ruling, it is their overall opinion, but has the force of a SCROTUS "Ruling" from the Third Branch of the Federal Government.

    The SCROTUS has ruled contrary to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights many, many times. Does that change the Constitution itself....not one bit.

    Does that apply the doctrine/practice of "Stare Decisis" to any "ruling they make and on the rulings of future SCROTUS' and the future rulings of ALL Lower Courts.....absolutely.

    SCROTUS Rulings are used as the basis of government and police actions, directly.

    Does that make it right, or Constitutional, to apply the weight of previous rulings which are clearly contrary to the Constitution itself....not one bit, however, that is the way our blessed government has decided to play it over the centuries.

    The question is, what can we do about it?

    Many of us are attempting to "wake up" our citizens, to not only what is actually happening right before us, but to awaken an understanding of why these things government does, are wrong.

    We attempt to educate as to why these government actions must be countered. We attempt this by holding the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Founding Principals of Individualism up, to be used as a yardstick to measure government actions.

    Largely, people are ignorant, apathetic, or they willfully ignore what is happening to the nation. A group mindset takes over and many simply hope things will somehow "get better", or that "someone" or "something" will correct what they "feel" is wrong.

    That simply isn't going to happen.

    It will take an awake and aware populace, capable of being armed by "Liberties Teeth" and armed with the knowledge of how the Republic is supposed to operate, prior to ANYTHING changing.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,837 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by brian-usa
    Don't fall into that trap. The SCOTUS issued an OPINION. They did not add anything to the U.S. Constitution, nor did their OPINION become part of the Constitution. We must never let various Judges, Senators, Congressmen, or lawyers try to claim that court rulings or opinions make law. According to the actual written Constitution, only Congress makes law. The rulings and opinions merely attempt to apply actual laws to the details in specific cases. This important point is a very strong weapon against legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, most lawyers and law schools today teach the false idea that courts make law through precedent.

    I agree that in our current situation where citizens are ignorant and believe that court rulings become part of the law, the people end up victims of those rulings via the power of law enforcement and the courts. And since they have the biggest stick, the government wins even when they are practicing without authority. We may become victims of additional unconstitutional licensing, restrictions, and regulations, but let us never go along with the idea that such unconstitutional things are law because some Judge, Senator, Congressman, or lawyer said so.

    Welcome, brian-usa. Of course you are technically correct.

    The comment is directed at the practical and future impact of the ruling. Though the ruling simply upheld the Appellate Court decision, in the decision and summary, licensing, registration and regulation (restriction) were specifically mentioned.

    The practical and future effect of this wording is to fold these concepts into what is to be judged 'Constitutional' in future suits. My intent in stating that these have now been written into the Constitution is to point out exactly what you are pointing out, that judges are legislating from the bench, and we cannot, as the good captain has noted, sit back and allow this to continue.

    It is not Constitutional, agreed. Sadly, it is now the law.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    X ring lt.!


    Thanks jp and it is really good to see you back in the fray.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    Now, damn it Jeff, isn't that what I have been saying?? We need to educate the 'the ignorant and apathetic' and win them over to our cause. (Numbers, people/votes and money)[;)]
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    Now, damn it Jeff, isn't that what I have been saying?? We need to educate the 'the ignorant and apathetic' and win them over to our cause. (Numbers, people/votes and money)[;)]


    Hi Jim.[:)]

    Your approach, at least as I understand it, involves hitching to "organizations" such as the NRA and in the willing acceptance/embrace of CCW type "privileges", selling that to neophyte gun-owners, then subsequently attempting to bring them to the "pure version" of Amendment II, after the "hook" is in.

    Sound like a fair characterization?

    My issue is that by supporting those groups who have adopted a perverted view of Amendment II and then supporting CCW type "privilege" in an attempt to win-over neophyte gun-owners, is counter-productive.

    My reason for this belief Jim, is that once the idea of such a skewed view of Amendment II is supported and adopted by the neophytes, they largely adopt such an understanding of the 2A as righteous and proper.

    Case in point, the multitude of living breathing examples right here on GB, who will go to their graves in support of gun-privileges, never truly understanding the fallacy of their position.

    Rather, I choose the consistent approach of putting the "bottom-line" in front of them. This puts the lie, like it or not, to the compromise position.

    In addition, the issue is far larger than Amendment II. It is about the very method of collectivist-governing that is being forced on America, contrary to our founding principals I must add.

    The "bottom-line" is all about the basic issue of "Collectivism vs. Individualism, as a philosophy.

    Collectivism is at the root of the issues we argue about reference gun rights.

    Until this simple fact is grasped, this argument and fight will NEVER be settled, barring violent action. That is something that I pray to God does not have to happen.

    Jim, I think that I see your angle, and for what it is, it may be "marginally" effective in the narrow focus of the gun issue.

    That being said, it absolutely does not address the "bottom-line", that being to bring an understanding of the big picture that the insidious collectivist mindset and collectivist government actions are all about.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    Jeff,
    Well then I'll get their attention with a little gentle nudging and then send them your way and you can take it from there.
    I have, personaly, changed hunderds, if not thousands, of peoples view of this issue. And hopfuly they have helped by enlightening others.
    WE must get them up off their knees, get them walking, and then we can teach them to run and compeat. Human 'babies' don't just jump up and run! How long did it take you all to get where you are now in this fight???[?]
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    Jeff,
    Well then I'll get their attention with a little gentle nudging and then send them your way and you can take it from there.
    I have, personaly, changed hunderds, if not thousands, of peoples view of this issue. And hopfuly they have helped by enlightening others.
    WE must get them up off their knees, get them walking, and then we can teach them to run and compeat. Human 'babies' don't just jump up and run! How long did it take you all to get where you are now in this fight???[?]


    Pass them on when you have finished and i'll take a crack at them Jim.[;)]

    Do you understand why I take the position that I do at least, regardless of your agreeing with it or not?

    Did I make a fair characterization of your approach? I want to make sure I do not mis-characterize it for you.
  • brian-usabrian-usa Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Proper rulings are binding in the specific case decided. Judges, lawyers, and courts have decided to follow Stare Decisis to make it easier for them to issue rulings in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. And it's also intended to help law enforcement officials with proper enforcement of the law. But Stare Decisis doesn't empower courts to legislate, and their rulings must still be constitutional.

    U.S. Courts have reached the point where lawyers and judges can overlook the various constitutions, and instead use foreign or international laws and cherry picked rulings and opinions, and dump them into their handy Stare Decisis blender and draft new "law". The US Justice System has corrupted the supreme law of the land by trampling it under the feet of a Stare Decisis monster suffering from brain damage. And the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, Law Schools, and the judges and lawyers themselves all share in a desire to stay on the current path. They are all content to let Stare Decisis trump the constitution whenever the latter gets in the way of the desired result.

    Rulings that stand on Stare Decisis but fall apart when exposed to the plain words of the Constitution have no place in our courts and are certainly not law. (Black's Law Dictionary says an unconstitutional statute is not a "law"). Unfortunately, even though all those unconstitutional decisions, opinions, and rulings are not really law, the men with the big sticks will still hammer you when you don't follow them (the "laws", though unconstitutional, carry the weight of law in our courts today).

    I believe it's vital to understand that unconstitutional statutes are not "law", to break the habit of referring to unconstitutional rulings/opinions, etc. as "law", and to inform others of these truths.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by brian-usa
    Proper rulings are binding in the specific case decided. Judges, lawyers, and courts have decided to follow Stare Decisis to make it easier for them to issue rulings in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. And it's also intended to help law enforcement officials with proper enforcement of the law. But Stare Decisis doesn't empower courts to legislate, and their rulings must still be constitutional.

    U.S. Courts have reached the point where lawyers and judges can overlook the various constitutions, and instead use foreign or international laws and cherry picked rulings and opinions, and dump them into their handy Stare Decisis blender and draft new "law". The US Justice System has corrupted the supreme law of the land by trampling it under the feet of a Stare Decisis monster suffering from brain damage. And the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, Law Schools, and the judges and lawyers themselves all share in a desire to stay on the current path. They are all content to let Stare Decisis trump the constitution whenever the latter gets in the way of the desired result.

    Rulings that stand on Stare Decisis but fall apart when exposed to the plain words of the Constitution have no place in our courts and are certainly not law. (Black's Law Dictionary says an unconstitutional statute is not a "law"). Unfortunately, even though all those unconstitutional decisions, opinions, and rulings are not really law, the men with the big sticks will still hammer you when you don't follow them (the "laws", though unconstitutional, carry the weight of law in our courts today).

    I believe it's vital to understand that unconstitutional statutes are not "law", to break the habit of referring to unconstitutional rulings/opinions, etc. as "law", and to inform others of these truths.



    And "that" identifies how, in large measure, our Constitution has been exiled and made irrelevant.

    Now if only more would realize it and stand up.......
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    I normaly do not need help, but if it will free me up to go 'get' some more![:)]
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    I normaly do not need help, but if it will free me up to go 'get' some more![:)]


    quote:Jeff,
    Well then I'll get their attention with a little gentle nudging and then send them your way and you can take it from there.

    Jim, you offered, so I figured, what the hell, I'll take a run at them for you when you finish.[:o)]
Sign In or Register to comment.