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.
Options
Supreme Court to decide 2nd Amendment
darkknight650
Member Posts: 4 ✭✭
I heard on the radio yesterday that the Supreme Court goes into it 07/08 session next week that it will be hearing a case to decide if the second Amendment actually gives an american citizen the right to bear arms or is it the right of the state for the reserves. I caught this flipping around the radio yesterday on NPR radio of all things, and was surprised to not see anything posted on here about it. Just thought i would share what i heard and see what your thought were.
Comments
Earlier this month, the Mayor of D.C asked the court to review the case. I don't think the court has given him an answer yet.
Keep your fingers crossed, this is gonna be big.
I get my news on the case from them.
www.cato.org
I do not believe for one minute that a broad brush ruling will be made in this case.
Hope I am wrong.[:(!]
All I ever heard of was SCOTUS.
Dsmith; quote:Highball, just for clarification, what does SCTUM stand for?
Just my lame attempt at poking fun at the black dressed 'final deciders' of our Rights and Freedoms.
It was meant to approximate the spelling of a part of the males anatomy that one wouldn't give the sweat off my " " to.
At any rate, its a no-lose situation for us.
If the court decides in our favor, the benefits are obvious.
If they decide against us, nothing will change. Anti-Gun folks have been operating as if there was no 2nd Amendment to begin with. Pro-gun types will still fight gun control in the Legislatures. A decision against us won't mean JBTs start rounding up gun owners across America, it just means gun ownership isn't protected by the Constitution.
..., it just means gun ownership isn't protected by the Constitution.
pffff that will be the trigger, it will be big; It could very well be when "shtf"
The only thing that could trigger it, in my opinion, is a door to door roundup of gun owners. That won't happen because, even in the most anti-gun of states, there still isn't the political will to do so...
At worst, the nibbling will merely countinue
In short if a ruling like this expels from the bowels of our justice system, I would betrayed by my own country. It would be like all the things you learned in school mainly civics was all just BS. We built this country on FREEDOM, FAIRNESS AND FIREARMS! And that is the same way we will take it back!
No sir, the only reaction you'll see is some grumbling by the masses, a massive NRA "WE NEED YOUR MONEY NOW MORE THAN EVER!" fund raising campaign, and some chest thumping on internet sites such as this one.
Its a damn shame too
The recent ruling on Eminent Domain also pooped on one of the principal beliefs of Americans, the belief in private property. There was no widespread outrage, only the usual grumbling by those that actually watch the news.....
No sir, the only reaction you'll see is some grumbling by the masses, a massive NRA "WE NEED YOUR MONEY NOW MORE THAN EVER!" fund raising campaign, and some chest thumping on internet sites such as this one.
Its a damn shame too
X-ring Rack. I see it just as clearly.
The recent ruling on Eminent Domain also pooped on one of the principal beliefs of Americans, the belief in private property. There was no widespread outrage, only the usual grumbling by those that actually watch the news.....
No sir, the only reaction you'll see is some grumbling by the masses, a massive NRA "WE NEED YOUR MONEY NOW MORE THAN EVER!" fund raising campaign, and some chest thumping on internet sites such as this one.
Its a damn shame too
Now that view of the recent ED ruling I can agree with entirely. It may purport to meet requirements, and might have at least a small bit of validity, but it certainly does not come close to original intent.
BTW, I have lost a couple of hundred acres to ED, some of it pretty valid, some of it off base, so I might have a bit of an idea what this entails.
I'm a long way from lacking the knowledge, involvement, and ability LT thinks.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
The recent ruling on Eminent Domain also pooped on one of the principal beliefs of Americans, the belief in private property. There was no widespread outrage, only the usual grumbling by those that actually watch the news.....
No sir, the only reaction you'll see is some grumbling by the masses, a massive NRA "WE NEED YOUR MONEY NOW MORE THAN EVER!" fund raising campaign, and some chest thumping on internet sites such as this one.
Its a damn shame too
Now that view of the recent ED ruling I can agree with entirely. It may purport to meet requirements, and might have at least a small bit of validity, but it certainly does not come close to original intent.
BTW, I have lost a couple of hundred acres to ED, some of it pretty valid, some of it off base, so I might have a bit of an idea what this entails.
I'm a long way from lacking the knowledge, involvement, and ability LT thinks.
Clarification??????
D.C. resists expansion of gun case review:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1910608/posts
Wyatt Earp banned guns in Dodge City KS back in the 1880s. Will the Scotus overturn that old principal?
They should. Who was he anyway? He wasn't God to my knowledge. He was in fact, a public servant, and bearing no RIGHT to dictate our rights and freedoms.
That answer your question? [:D]
Wyatt Earp banned guns in Dodge City KS back in the 1880s. Will the Scotus overturn that old principal?
That ban by Earp (and others in KS) came about in spite of the KS bill of constitutional rights that clearly and emphatically gave all KS citizens the right to possess and carry their firearms EVERYWHERE, concealed or not. If you read the KS bill or rights, there is nothing said about some Marshall like Earp violating those gun rights.
Here is a copy of the KS bill of rights section regarding citizen gun rights:
State of Kansas
Kansas Bill of Rights
? 4. Bear arms; armies. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
"Without Liberty, Law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without Law, Liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness."---James Q. Wilson
I'm just a dumb ol' redneck and had to look it up, BUT: I understand the concept!!
Pronunciation: l?-sen(t)-sh#601;s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin licentiosus, from licentia
1: lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints 2: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness
- li?cen?tious?ly adverb
- li?cen?tious?ness noun
plumber: maybe, but I doubt it....
The only thing that could trigger it, in my opinion, is a door to door roundup of gun owners. That won't happen because, even in the most anti-gun of states, there still isn't the political will to do so...
At worst, the nibbling will merely countinue
Actually, if we lose the US Constitutional 2A, there are several states that have an even stronger bill of rights that provide for citizen gun ownership and carry.
A ruling voiding tdhe US 2A would only cause us to lose our supposed federal protected right to own guns. If you live in a state with a state constitution that provides for citizen gun rights, you could still offer that state constitutional right as a legal reason for you to keep all your guns. And since most states constitutional gun rights are worded more strongly and more clearly than the US 2A, you might have a stronger and better chance of keeping your guns than if you relied on the US 2A; at least when you were in that particular state. A good example of this is that most states have CCW and many states recognize others states CCW. But there is not and probably never will be a FEDERAL nationwide CCW.
And frankly, such a situation was one of the intents of the framers of the US Constitution. They felt that even if the US Govt. got something wrong, and even if some of the states got the same something wrong, at least maybe SOME of the states would get it right.
Kinda the theory of not having all your eggs (rights) in one basket.
quote:Actually, if we lose the US Constitutional 2A, there are several states that have an even stronger bill of rights that provide for citizen gun ownership and carry.
A ruling voiding the US 2A would only cause us to lose our supposed federal protected right to own guns. If you live in a state with a state constitution that provides for citizen gun rights, you could still offer that state constitutional right as a legal reason for you to keep all your guns. And since most states constitutional gun rights are worded more strongly and more clearly than the US 2A, you might have a stronger and better chance of keeping your guns than if you relied on the US 2A; at least when you were in that particular state. A good example of this is that most states have CCW and many states recognize others states CCW. But there is not and probably never will be a FEDERAL nationwide CCW.
And frankly, such a situation was one of the intents of the framers of the US Constitution. They felt that even if the US Govt. got something wrong, and even if some of the states got the same something wrong, at least maybe SOME of the states would get it right.
Kinda like the theory of not having all your eggs (rights) in one basket.
That's an awful lot of if's, and's, and maybe's!! Sounds to me like you've put all your eggs in the wrong basket!!! Rather than demand the Federal Government acknowledge your Second Amendment Right, your hoping they will still allow the States to do so. With the current trends, I'd say your living in a dream world. It's time to face reality!!!
trfox:
quote:Actually, if we lose the US Constitutional 2A, there are several states that have an even stronger bill of rights that provide for citizen gun ownership and carry.
A ruling voiding the US 2A would only cause us to lose our supposed federal protected right to own guns. If you live in a state with a state constitution that provides for citizen gun rights, you could still offer that state constitutional right as a legal reason for you to keep all your guns. And since most states constitutional gun rights are worded more strongly and more clearly than the US 2A, you might have a stronger and better chance of keeping your guns than if you relied on the US 2A; at least when you were in that particular state. A good example of this is that most states have CCW and many states recognize others states CCW. But there is not and probably never will be a FEDERAL nationwide CCW.
And frankly, such a situation was one of the intents of the framers of the US Constitution. They felt that even if the US Govt. got something wrong, and even if some of the states got the same something wrong, at least maybe SOME of the states would get it right.
Kinda like the theory of not having all your eggs (rights) in one basket.
That's an awful lot of if's, and's, and maybe's!! Sounds to me like you've put all your eggs in the wrong basket!!! Rather than demand the Federal Government acknowledge your Second Amendment Right, your hoping they will still allow the States to do so. With the current trends, I'd say your living in a dream world. It's time to face reality!!!
If you would stop and think for say, oh EVEN TWO SECONDS, you would realize that this lawsuit that is hopefully headed to the Supreme Court is the pro-gun peoples "demand that the Federal Government acknowledge your Second Amendment Right." My post about this was what might happen if we lose that Supreme Court decision.
Well, "I'd say your" always just looking for any weak excuse to criticize. I didn't say I caused this situation, or that I like or support this situation. I merely offered my interpertation of how it looks to me.
Now, feel free to find a reason to come back with a negative comment to that.
I DO realize this lawsuit that is the pro-gun peoples demand that the Federal Government acknowledge our Second Amendment Rights. I also realize the scope of this decision may be limited before, during or after it is decided. Without an uncompromised win, there is little or no hope that States' rights to protect/dictate pro-firearms laws will fair any better in the future. PLEASE WAKE-UP and smell the Coffee.
OBTW: Take this with a grain of salt, but to me, it just "sounded" more like "another" of your feeble attempts to look for an upside to another lose and urge me (or others) to accept that concept. I'm not buying it!!! If you haven't realized it yet, I CAN NOT accept your interpretation or your reasoning.
trfox:
I DO realize this lawsuit that is the pro-gun peoples demand that the Federal Government acknowledge our Second Amendment Rights. I also realize the scope of this decision may be limited before, during or after it is decided. Without an uncompromised win, there is little or no hope that States' rights to protect/dictate pro-firearms laws will fair any better in the future. PLEASE WAKE-UP and smell the Coffee.
OBTW: Take this with a grain of salt, but to me, it just "sounded" more like "another" of your feeble attempts to look for an upside to another lose and urge me (or others) to accept that concept. I'm not buying it!!! If you haven't realized it yet, I CAN NOT accept your interpretation or your reasoning.
States don't get rights, remember??? They are authorized powers by us.
Conservatives are the historical defenders of states' rights, and the supposed proponents of keeping big government out of people's lives, but some social conservatives are happy to see the federal government acquire Stalinist proportions when imposing their morality on the rest of the country.
In reference to the Terry Schiavo case in Florida:
"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy." - Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut. Shays also said. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them.
I find that funny since they are doing everything possible to remove God from our vocabulary. (They are starting to make me wonder who/what they hold sacred/worship.) I believe the Supreme Court went south on states rights in about 1937. Therefore, I see the federal government as having the power to force a single moral (more like immoral) code across the whole country, States be-damned.
Actually, if we lose the US Constitutional 2A, there are several states that have an even stronger bill of rights that provide for citizen gun ownership and carry.
this stuns me on two fronts, the first being you have swallowed losing your 2nd amendment right like it was a little pill, the second being that you believe the supreme law of the land can be over ridden by states. The Constitution does not grant powers to the people, it declares limitations on government!
quote:Originally posted by tr fox A ruling voiding tdhe US 2A would only cause us to lose our supposed federal protected right to own guns. If you live in a state with a state constitution that provides for citizen gun rights, you could still offer that state constitutional right as a legal reason for you to keep all your guns.
see answer above it applies here too! A ruling voiding the 2nd will void our government out of legitimacy! It will start a civil war I promise you that, there are too many American Patriots left here; We have not all been brainwashed by, phillip morris, sony, microsoft, qualcomm, mac, mtv, *, enzyte, levitra, cialis etc etc etc.... Some of us American patriots laugh at the sheer ignorance of it all! It is within the power and scope of the American people to abolish their current government!
quote:Originally posted by tr foxAnd since most states constitutional gun rights are worded more strongly and more clearly than the US 2A, you might have a stronger and better chance of keeping your guns than if you relied on the US 2A; at least when you were in that particular state.
So you are saying it is just a matter of time before we live in the united state of cali?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox A good example of this is that most states have CCW and many states recognize others states CCW. But there is not and probably never will be a FEDERAL nationwide CCW.
And after this ruling every state and province will recognize Americans right to be free! This country must "save face" the whole world realizes the joke is on us, we are the only ones left waiting to here what brad pitt and dr phil and howard stern have to say. If the courts violate the American people and her founding documents it will pale in comparison to what GWB has done to the 14th amendment.
quote:Originally posted by tr foxAnd frankly, such a situation was one of the intents of the framers of the US Constitution. They felt that even if the US Govt. got something wrong, and even if some of the states got the same something wrong, at least maybe SOME of the states would get it right.
Lying, cheating and stealing has always been the same hasn't it.
quote:Originally posted by tr foxKinda the theory of not having all your eggs (rights) in one basket.
all I can say tr is wow you have really surprised me..
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Actually, if we lose the US Constitutional 2A, there are several states that have an even stronger bill of rights that provide for citizen gun ownership and carry.
this stuns me on two fronts, the first being you have swallowed losing your 2nd amendment right like it was a little pill, the second being that you believe the supreme law of the land can be over ridden by states. The Constitution does not grant powers to the people, it declares limitations on government!
quote:Originally posted by tr fox A ruling voiding tdhe US 2A would only cause us to lose our supposed federal protected right to own guns. If you live in a state with a state constitution that provides for citizen gun rights, you could still offer that state constitutional right as a legal reason for you to keep all your guns.
see answer above it applies here too! A ruling voiding the 2nd will void our government out of legitimacy! It will start a civil war I promise you that, there are too many American Patriots left here; We have not all been brainwashed by, phillip morris, sony, microsoft, qualcomm, mac, mtv, *, enzyte, levitra, cialis etc etc etc.... Some of us American patriots laugh at the sheer ignorance of it all! It is within the power and scope of the American people to abolish their current government!
quote:Originally posted by tr foxAnd since most states constitutional gun rights are worded more strongly and more clearly than the US 2A, you might have a stronger and better chance of keeping your guns than if you relied on the US 2A; at least when you were in that particular state.
So you are saying it is just a matter of time before we live in the united state of cali?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox A good example of this is that most states have CCW and many states recognize others states CCW. But there is not and probably never will be a FEDERAL nationwide CCW.
And after this ruling every state and province will recognize Americans right to be free! This country must "save face" the whole world realizes the joke is on us, we are the only ones left waiting to here what brad pitt and dr phil and howard stern have to say. If the courts violate the American people and her founding documents it will pale in comparison to what GWB has done to the 14th amendment.
quote:Originally posted by tr foxAnd frankly, such a situation was one of the intents of the framers of the US Constitution. They felt that even if the US Govt. got something wrong, and even if some of the states got the same something wrong, at least maybe SOME of the states would get it right.
Lying, cheating and stealing has always been the same hasn't it.
quote:Originally posted by tr foxKinda the theory of not having all your eggs (rights) in one basket.
all I can say tr is wow you have really surprised me..
In red above. I give up. But I will make an effort to respond to at least part of what you said. I do not want to lose my US Constitutional 2A (or any other) right. I was merely makeing an observation (last time I'll do that here for awhile) about how it might not be such a total loss if the lawsuit that apparently will be decided by the US Supreme court regarding run rights, goes against gun ownership.
And in regards to your "law of the land", the US Constitution is not a "law". Instead it is a document that is supposed to regulate the behavior of the US Government and the laws made by that government. The term "states rights" apply here.
Now everybody, go ahead and pick that apart. But don't expect a quick response because it will be awhile before I have time to waste reading it.
quote:I was merely making an observation (last time I'll do that here for awhile) about how it might not be such a total loss if the lawsuit that apparently will be decided by the US Supreme court regarding run rights, goes against gun ownership.
That's what I thought you said!!! (Even though I couldn't believe it.) Thanks for the confirmation. What has happened to you? Or is it me? One of us seems to have changed, considerable, in the last couple of years. I just don't remember ever being so diametrically opposed on anything. I can't even agree to disagree with this.
I was merely makeing an observation (last time I'll do that here for awhile) about how it might not be such a total loss if the lawsuit that apparently will be decided by the US Supreme court regarding run rights, goes against gun ownership.
By any chance are you on the board at the NRA. If not, you should run- you really fit perfect with their way of thinking.
gunphreak:
Conservatives are the historical defenders of states' rights, and the supposed proponents of keeping big government out of people's lives, but some social conservatives are happy to see the federal government acquire Stalinist proportions when imposing their morality on the rest of the country.
In reference to the Terry Schiavo case in Florida:
"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy." - Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut. Shays also said. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them.
I find that funny since they are doing everything possible to remove God from our vocabulary. (They are starting to make me wonder who/what they hold sacred/worship.) I believe the Supreme Court went south on states rights in about 1937. Therefore, I see the federal government as having the power to force a single moral (more like immoral) code across the whole country, States be-damned.
You understand that I am a constitutionalist, and not a conservative, right???
And I don't give a damn what conservatives stand for; rights are individually endowed by the creator, and my creator is the God of Christianity. No entity possesses any rights, because They are a political process, not a sentient being.
Optimus Prime '08!!!!
And I don't give a damn what conservatives stand for; rights are individually endowed by the creator, and my creator is the God of Christianity. No entity possesses any rights, because They are a political process, not a sentient being.
Strong, tough words.
Words to live by...and when necessary...die by.
REAL reasons to fight...and none of the contrieved trash talk used to send good men to their deaths...all for the profit of the few.
God in Heaven...WHY do so few UNDERSTAND those words ????
The long wait may finally be over
The long wait may finally be over
One way, or the other. [;)]
quote:Originally posted by Wagon Wheel
gunphreak:
Conservatives are the historical defenders of states' rights, and the supposed proponents of keeping big government out of people's lives, but some social conservatives are happy to see the federal government acquire Stalinist proportions when imposing their morality on the rest of the country.
In reference to the Terry Schiavo case in Florida:
"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy." - Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut. Shays also said. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them.
I find that funny since they are doing everything possible to remove God from our vocabulary. (They are starting to make me wonder who/what they hold sacred/worship.) I believe the Supreme Court went south on states rights in about 1937. Therefore, I see the federal government as having the power to force a single moral (more like immoral) code across the whole country, States be-damned.
quote:You understand that I am a constitutionalist, and not a conservative, right???No. It's hard to tell what a persons political persuasion is, for sure, and whether or not they vote their conscience/ beliefs or not. I do know that many "Strict Constitutionalists" defer their voice (at the ballot box) to others, whom are less informed!! However, I could only guess that you are a firm believer in the Constitutional Authority by your posts.
quote:And I don't give a damn what conservatives stand for; rights are individually endowed by the creator, and my creator is the God of Christianity. No entity possesses any rights, because They are a political process, not a sentient being.I suggest you re-read my post. I don't think you and I differ much in our stance on the subject!! Although I am still a registered Republican, I make no secret of my support for Ron Paul!!! I don't think I need to explain to you why!!!!! And I Vote. (And I'm NOT suggesting that you don't.)