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.
SUPREMES: RTKBA TO ALL 50 States!!!
HandLoad
Member Posts: 15,998 ✭
Which Seven didn't make the cut???[:D][:D][:D]
Comments
Which Seven didn't make the cut???[:D][:D][:D]
found it on face book.
BREAKING NEWS FOX NEWS::
In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.
Which Seven didn't make the cut???[:D][:D][:D]
Ha!...I get it...[:I]
5-4 vote, close[8D]
always is
think they just draw straws
Too old to live...too young to die...
The Associated Press
Monday, June 28, 2010; 10:46 AM
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.
By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.
Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."
The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.
Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.
That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.
Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.
Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.
Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.
Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."
Thus the need for the SCOTUS to define "Shall Not Be Infringed".
Gee, I wonder if the NRA will bring that up anytime soon?
1. Notice the "narrow vote" comment from the AP. Liberal media always says "narrow vote" when liberals lose the decision. You won't see those words in print when the vote goes their way.
2. When the DC ban was struck down the city council imposed such an insurmountable obstacle of rules and regulations for gun ownership that the effect is the same. Are there any legal gun owners in DC yet, two years after the ruling?
Too old to live...too young to die...
Two thoughts:
1. Notice the "narrow vote" comment from the AP. Liberal media always says "narrow vote" when liberals lose the decision. You won't see those words in print when the vote goes their way.
2. When the DC ban was struck down the city council imposed such an insurmountable obstacle of rules and regulations for gun ownership that the effect is the same. Are there any legal gun owners in DC yet, two years after the ruling?
Doc,
I agree 100% with both of your points.
1. People in media choose their words quite carefully; the "narrow vote" is a greeat catch on your behalf. As subtle as it may seem, they do have a target audience in mind when they write the article.
2. Chicago will bury in paperwork, any free man who tries to force the State of Chicago to recognize his rights.
What a shame... I guess it's a victory, but the SCOTUS will do NOTHING about Chicago refusing to adhere to the decision.
NS
SO she is not only fat and ugly, she is a liar.
I hope the Senators on the judicial committee are alot tougher on Kagen and expose some of her lying tendancies before she is approved or confirmed by the whole senate.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc
Two thoughts:
1. Notice the "narrow vote" comment from the AP. Liberal media always says "narrow vote" when liberals lose the decision. You won't see those words in print when the vote goes their way.
2. When the DC ban was struck down the city council imposed such an insurmountable obstacle of rules and regulations for gun ownership that the effect is the same. Are there any legal gun owners in DC yet, two years after the ruling?
Doc,
I agree 100% with both of your points.
1. People in media choose their words quite carefully; the "narrow vote" is a greeat catch on your behalf. As subtle as it may seem, they do have a target audience in mind when they write the article.
2. Chicago will bury in paperwork, any free man who tries to force the State of Chicago to recognize his rights.
What a shame... I guess it's a victory, but the SCOTUS will do NOTHING about Chicago refusing to adhere to the decision.
NS
I dont remember the facts but D.C. tried to side step the ruling. And in turn D.C. didnt get a seat in congress or something like that.
Votes are always 5-4. There are 5 relatively conservative justices and 4 ultra-liberals. So far Sheik Obama has gotten to replace only liberal members so no change in Court makeup.
I don't see this as such a good thing. Oh, I'm glad we won, but it scares me that 4 voted nay. That tells me that the Second would be in jeopardy should be lose one more semi-conservative SCOTUS member.
THAT would prompt a SHTF scenario.
quote:Originally posted by Doc
Two thoughts:
1. Notice the "narrow vote" comment from the AP. Liberal media always says "narrow vote" when liberals lose the decision. You won't see those words in print when the vote goes their way.
2. When the DC ban was struck down the city council imposed such an insurmountable obstacle of rules and regulations for gun ownership that the effect is the same. Are there any legal gun owners in DC yet, two years after the ruling?
Doc,
I agree 100% with both of your points.
1. People in media choose their words quite carefully; the "narrow vote" is a greeat catch on your behalf. As subtle as it may seem, they do have a target audience in mind when they write the article.
2. Chicago will bury in paperwork, any free man who tries to force the State of Chicago to recognize his rights.
What a shame... I guess it's a victory, but the SCOTUS will do NOTHING about Chicago refusing to adhere to the decision.
NS
Sorry for the repeat -- posted this in another thread in General Discussion. Apparently Mayor Daley already had plans to follow DC's lead and make handgun ownership as difficult as possible. These folks don't give up power easily, and consider the Constitution only an inconvenience.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/28/john-lott-supreme-court-guns-ban-washington-chicago-daley-kagan-sotomayor/#content
If for no other reason, we need to thank George W. Bush for nominating first-rate conservative justices. Were it not for his appointments, we'd have lost this one.
An absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon a citizens fundamental right to keep and bear arms is perverted openly to now supposedly mean that government can indeed infringe 'reasonably' upon what is absolutely prohibited.
This is hailed as a great victory for individual liberty and the champagne corks are heard popping all around the nation.
Excuse me whilst I go sit in a quiet place and contemplate how truly horrendous these dirt-simple facts are and what they portend for the future, then i'll go puke over the result.
Another example of the disconnect with constitutional understanding here in 'new america'...
An absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon a citizens fundamental right to keep and bear arms is perverted openly to now supposedly mean that government can indeed infringe 'reasonably' upon what is absolutely prohibited.
This is hailed as a great victory for individual liberty and the champagne corks are heard popping all around the nation.
Excuse me whilst I go sit in a quiet place and contemplate how truly horrendous these dirt-simple facts are and what they portend for the future, then i'll go puke over the result.
+1,000,000,000
Assault weapons are the crux of the 2nd amendment - the equipment of the solider.
The regulations of the militia act of 1792 were that adult male citizens would have muskets or rifles capable of firing the standard size lead balle used by army regulars- ie mandating that citizens had the weaponry equivalent to that or a regular soldier.
The common soldier carries an assault rifle, and thus a well regulated militia should have assault rifles that use the same ammunition as that used by our soldiers - perhaps even assault weapons that can use the same magazine as well, and maybe even a compatible mounting rail.
Those are the type of regulations from the year after the 2nd was written.
Regulations stating what you had to have, not what you could not have.
5-4 utterly disgusting.
If something happens to any one of those 5, and it turns into 4-5 it is time for bloodshed.
The fate of the lives of many hinges on the fate of those 5.
Even among those 5 are statements that I find deeply disturbing, but they are the closest thing we've got to a friend.... but then again, perhaps I should borrow a though from Marcus Garvey.
quote:I regard the Klan, the Anglo-Saxon clubs and White American societies, as far as the Negro is concerned, as better friends of the race than all other groups of hypocritical whites put together. I like honesty and fair play.
Perhaps we should "regard Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter, as far as gun rights are concerned, as better friends of gun owners than all other groups of equivicating politicians put together. I like honesty and fair play."
What is the bigger threat? the ones that openly declare themselves oppossed to you, or the ones that pretend to be on your side and stab you in the back?
It wasn't the NVA that was the problem in Vietnam, it was the VC.
It wasn't Saddam's military that was the problem, its the insurgents that pose as peaceful civilians.
I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years, there isn't major civil unrest and fighting against the government.