SA Friday Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Carlos has not posted on this yet, and for good reason. I doubt he got a lot of sleep last night. I'll let him break the news to the BE consumers himself, but I will say CONGRATS Carlos. With this ruling, begins a long road ahead. As for me, I going to the range today and practicing some of my reaffirmed individual freedoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 DAMN, I'm going to build myself another gun to celebrate. As we say in texas YEE-HAWWWWWW. Make it a 9 open Benny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38superman Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) At long last we have a ruling from the highest court. The 2nd amendment means what it says. The right to bear arms is a right bestowed on individual citizens. The court has restored my faith and hope for the future. LET FREEDOM RING. "It is so ordered". Tls Edited June 26, 2008 by 38superman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrettone Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) then I went out and fired two shots into the air. Not to get off-topic, but c'mon formeister...we still need to be responsible when we celebrate...KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT...Now back to our regularly scheduled programming... Edited June 26, 2008 by Barrettone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Carlos has not posted on this yet, and for good reason. I doubt he got a lot of sleep last night. I'll let him break the news to the BE consumers himself, but I will say CONGRATS Carlos.With this ruling, begins a long road ahead. As for me, I going to the range today and practicing some of my reaffirmed individual freedoms. Congrats Carlos? I know he just had a baby, congrats on that btw, but what does he have to do with the ruling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 so on page 60: It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. Does this mean that any ban on any specific "type" of weapon such as the AR-15 would be unconstitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFoley Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 then I went out and fired two shots into the air. Not to get off-topic, but c'mon formeister...we still need to be responsible when we celebrate...KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT...Now back to our regularly scheduled programming... OK so I forgot to mention I used my airsoft. We do all of our live fire in the building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 so on page 60:It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. Does this mean that any ban on any specific "type" of weapon such as the AR-15 would be unconstitutional? hehe...should make them think twice about trying to resurrect the AWB.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrettone Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 then I went out and fired two shots into the air. Not to get off-topic, but c'mon formeister...we still need to be responsible when we celebrate...KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT...Now back to our regularly scheduled programming... OK so I forgot to mention I used my airsoft. We do all of our live fire in the building. Roger that buddy!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidwiz Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 so on page 60:It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. Does this mean that any ban on any specific "type" of weapon such as the AR-15 would be unconstitutional? Not necessarily. That issue wasn't before the court. There was dicta in the opinion that hinted that the 1934 National Firearms Act relating to machine guns is constitutional. There is also dicta in the opinion that clarifies US v Miller and that the 2nd Amendment applies to firearms that were in military use - but says that machine guns, tanks, etc. are outside the scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j2fast Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 so on page 60:It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. Does this mean that any ban on any specific "type" of weapon such as the AR-15 would be unconstitutional? To add to Racer's question does this pose any problems? “The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.” **Could someone say the AR was specifically designed for Military use? I would think no, that the M16 and M4 were designed for MIL use and the AR is a civie specific version. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. **Sounds like this part would stop City's/State from not issuing licenses "just because". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckbradley Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 then I went out and fired two shots into the air. Not to get off-topic, but c'mon formeister...we still need to be responsible when we celebrate...KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT...Now back to our regularly scheduled programming... I was afraid somebody may think he was serious. What a great day! I have to wonder how this will trickle down with other laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. **Sounds like this part would stop City's/State from not issuing licenses "just because". No - because they say: District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Edited June 26, 2008 by racerba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shooterbenedetto Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Great news!! great news indeed!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9MX Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 As we say here in the Philippines, Mabuhay (long live) to you guys, congratualtions on the victory! Does this mean that the current state laws (e.g. CA laws on FA restrictions, etc) will be rendered invalid or challenged in court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Suber Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 On Fox news, the Mayor of DC just stated that Semi-auto handguns will remain illegal in DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 perhaps the most telling line appears at page 64. "...but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the second amendment extinct". here's to justices scalia, roberts, alito, thomas and kennedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j2fast Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 On Fox news, the Mayor of DC just stated that Semi-auto handguns will remain illegal in DC. So are we now going to need the SCOTUS to define "Handgun"???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbob_texas Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) I just got out of a meeting. Did I miss anything? It's a great day. Extra added bonus: trigger locks are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! jr Edited June 26, 2008 by jimbob_texas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZ Bagger Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Good News. Hopefully it will lead to more good new for us down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Ellis Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) Dear Robert A. Levy and Dick Anthony Heller; I owe you a sincere debt of gratitude for the work you've done for myself and other citizens of the United States. Although it's an individual choice whether to own a firearm or not, todays' ruling affirms that the right to firearm ownership and use is an individual right as I believe the framers intended. Mr. Levy. Your untiring efforts and personal sacrifice lay the foundation for future work to restore the rights as the Framers intended. Please continue with the work from the Cato Institute. Mr. Heller. It is a proud day when one man who believes a wrong by a government has been done, can stand in front of the highest court in the nation and plead his case. That the highest court found that indeed the government was wrong and that the wrong has been redressed is indeed a symbol of our democracy. Gentlemen, thank you. Till later Hank Ellis Edited June 26, 2008 by Hank Ellis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey357 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 ALRIGHT!!! GREAT NEWS!!!...coulda' been BETTER, coulda' been MUCH WORSE...TIME TO CELEBRATE....mikey357 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driver8M3 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I have not read many decisions, but in the footnote on page 9, is:And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is “primarily collective in nature. Is that kind of language common? I mean, they disagree, but do they put it QUITE that way? No. I've never seen anything like it. Scalia must have been mighty PO'ed at Stevens. similar language is seen throughout scalia's opinion. i get the idea that scalia doesnt think much of the dissent... “And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think…” “In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom)…” “In any case, what JUSTICE STEVENS would conclude from the deleted provision does not follow.” “Finally, JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “keep and bear Arms” was some sort of term of art…There is nothing to this.” “JUSTICE STEVENS resorts to the bizarre argument…” “Contrary to JUSTICE STEVENS’ wholly unsupported assertion…” “JUSTICE STEVENS provides no support whatever for his contrary view,” “JUSTICE STEVENS says that the drafters of the Virginia Declaration of Rights rejected this proposal and adopted “instead” a provision written by George Mason stressing the importance of the militia. See post, at 24, and n. 24. There is no evidence that the drafters regarded the Mason proposal as a substitute for the Jefferson proposal.” “JUSTICE STEVENS relies on the drafting history of the Second Amendment—the various proposals in the state conventions and the debates in Congress. It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret…” “JUSTICE STEVENS flatly misreads the historical record.” “Other than that erroneous point, JUSTICE STEVENS has brought forward absolutely no evidence that those proposals conferred only a right to carry arms in a militia.” “JUSTICE STEVENS’ view thus relies on the proposition, unsupported by any evidence, that different people of the founding period had vastly different conceptions of the right to keep and bear arms. That simply does not comport with our longstanding view that the Bill of Rights codified venerable, widely understood liberties.” “…STEVENS’ equating of these sources with postenactment legislative history, a comparison that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of a court’s interpretive task.” “JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “[t]here is not so much as a whisper” in Story’s explanation of the Second Amendment that favors the individual-rights view. Post, at 34. That is wrong.” “JUSTICE STEVENS’ accusation that this is “not accurate,” post, at 39, is wrong.” “Unfortunately for JUSTICE STEVENS’ argument, that later portion deals with the Fourteenth Amendment; it was the Fourteenth Amendment to which the plaintiff’s nonmembership in the militia was relevant. Thus, JUSTICE STEVENS’ statement that Presser “suggested that. . . nothing in the Constitution protected the use of arms outside the context of a militia,” post, at 40, is simply wrong.” “Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case.” “It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment. JUSTICE STEVENS claims, post, at 42, that the opinion reached its conclusion “[a]fter reviewing many of the same sources that are discussed at greater length by the Court today.” Not many, which was not entirely the Court’s fault.” “It is demonstrably not true that, as JUSTICE STEVENS claims, post, at 41–42, “for most of our history, the invalidity of Second-Amendment-based objections to firearms regulations has been well settled and uncontroversial.”” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ysued Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms Fox News!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty whiteboy Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 On Fox news, the Mayor of DC just stated that Semi-auto handguns will remain illegal in DC. They will go broke being sued! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now