Supreme Court

[CSEMARTIN]

I know there are other places where we can discuss politics, but those 'other places' aren't here. Those 'other places' don't have all of our members.

I believe we should discuss politics on this forum.

[tightloop]

Sorry, but we have to abide by Brian's rules...

Don't whine or fuss...just do it...

[shred]

Sorry, but we have to abide by Brian's rules...

Don't whine or fuss...just do it...

+1.

Also note the relatively large number of shooters that don't have a 'USA' next to their name. Shooting is worldwide, all politics is local.

[CSEMARTIN]

Sorry, but we have to abide by Brian's rules...

Of course we have to abide by Brian's rules.... All I'm asking is that Brian reconsider.

This thread is political, and it's the longest running political thread I have ever seen on this forum. This thread is proof that we can discuss a political issue and be civil at the same time.

Shred, Shooting is worldwide- so is politics. I would love to hear the opinions of our non-USA members.

[Chills1994]

Tightloop back on page 3 wrote:

...OJ in jail, why isn't Al Sharpton doing time for lying to the Grand Jury in the Brawley case among others...stop trying to pose a question where none should be....

or why is a/an (alcoholic?) senator who drowned a (pregnant?) woman in the 60's still a senator and not in jail?

PM sent Tightloop

[SLM]

I know I'm not a "known" member here as I have only been around a while but I'd like to make a request... Can we please keep this thread on topic and free of other discussion/thoughts (OJ, etc)? I'd really like to see this thread stay open. THIS is a GREAT forum for shooting information and I feel this is a shooting related topic, albeit a political topic at the same time. The outcome of this decision could potently effect what we get to do with our guns (or not get to do) so please, let's not muck this up and get it closed.

Thanks for listening.

[Chills1994]

Okay, okay SLM...

Maybe (with my fingers crossed) if the Supreme Court decides favorably for us, that could lead to a domino effect of sorts....

there goes that full auto 1986 ban thing

there goes the Gun Control Act of 1968

and then there goes the National Firearms Act of 1930 something....

Wooooo..... Hoooo!!!!

I could have a way cheaper full auto gun of some sort with a suppressor without paying that 250 dollar tax....

ROCK AND ROLL!!!!

Probably not going to happen, but, hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

[GentlemanJim]

the tax stamp is tiny compared to what class 3 stuff costs now

Its now a waiting game...

Jim

[chp5]

Can we please keep this thread on topic and free of other discussion/thoughts? I'd really like to see this thread stay open.

Thanks for listening.

Well said. Let's use some restraint on this one guys (something I've not done in the past) and keep this open.

Edited November 16, 2007 by chp5

[Jim Norman]

One thing to keep in mind. We here may have a ridiculous number of restrictions on what we can own. (Yes it varies state to state) but looking at the world as a whole, we are largely unrestricted. We can reload, we can own virtually any gun. (Move to a different state within the country if you can't where you currently live (and boy wouldn't I if I could)).

Much of the world has far more restrictions than we do. If SCOTUS decides in our favor, some of what Chills 1994 may come to pass. If however SCOTUS rules against us, then we will wind up no better than many of our much more restriced brethern around the world and eventually find ourselves in much the same plight as the British.

Mods, if the above is considered too political for this thread, PLESE feel free to remove it, or ask me to modify or remove it rather than closing this thread.

Jim

[SA Friday]

Okay, okay SLM...

Maybe (with my fingers crossed) if the Supreme Court decides favorably for us, that could lead to a domino effect of sorts....

there goes that full auto 1986 ban thing

there goes the Gun Control Act of 1968

and then there goes the National Firearms Act of 1930 something....

Wooooo..... Hoooo!!!!

I could have a way cheaper full auto gun of some sort with a suppressor without paying that 250 dollar tax....

ROCK AND ROLL!!!!

Probably not going to happen, but, hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

I think that THIS is what's causing some hesitation to hear this case with some of the SC justices. IS there a difference between legislation like the Gun control act of 68 and an outright banning of all handguns within a local area? I don't know... It's really something to think about.

I've always related this question as how it impacts me, and a $250 tax stamp for a class 3 isn't that big of a deal, but a ban on handguns or ,god forbid another ban on high-caps, could be a crushing blow. But, the courts have to deal with how a ruling in this case could impact both state and federal laws for the last 80 years. Wow, the impact to CA alone could take a whole gaggle of lawyers to figure out.

It's never been the tax stamp that has stopped me from getting a full-auto. It's always been the price of pulling the trigger and holding it down

[Chills1994]

I'm in Illinois, so the Class III and NFA stuff is verboten anyways.

Yeah, I have seen the prices of Class III guns, receivers, and parts. My opinion, in a nutshell, is when ever the government meddles with something the prices go ballistic and there is a heck of a wait to clear all the bureacratic red tape. They have artificially created a shortage, and as all we know from Econ 101 what happens to price when there is a shortage of something.

As far as the NFA tax stamp goes, 250 dollars.... that's TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS!

That's money I could spend on something else. Does the government really need 250 dollars to pay for the expense of keeping my name and info and a serial number of some NFA item in a database.

250 Dollars, that's what some senior partners in a law firm will bill out per hour for their legal services. It should only take some 10 dollar to 20 dollar an hour government employee one time to get that info squared away in a database.

And you all may say that it is even more expensive to feed a Class III.... well that's your FREEDOM whether to feed it once for grins and giggles sake, and stick it in the safe to collect dust for the next 50 years, or to break it out every weekend and burn through 500 dollars worth of ammo at every range session.

The jist (gist?) of my argument is that government (aka Big Brother) is controlling (puppet stringing) your actions/choices (and your freedoms) with money (taxes).

That sticks in my craw. Yeah, I know the government does the exact same thing with other "social" programs too, but AFAIK, those other programs aren't explicitly spelled out in the Constitution like our 2A rights are.

[ima45dv8]

This thread has been allowed to remain open as a means to provide information and updates into the potential hearing of this issue by the Supreme Court. If the political discussions don't stop that will change very quickly.

If this gets Closed, it will be the due to the actions of the members posting here, not the moderators. Y'all decide.

[smokshwn]

I think this thread is very helpful in so far as I have learned a little about how the SC works etc..... Thanks to those who have put forth posts in this light.

[cking]

I'm hoping they hear the case. Especially since we are probably have all democratics and hillary in 08. You know they will all sing a different tune when they have the majority again.

I hope one of the houses stays republican. It doesn't work well when either side has free rein.

[Carlos]

Everyone - let's work to keep this thread open.

I located some additional factual explanation of our current Supreme Court in an article I was reading over lunchtime. I will post the link to the newspaper (The Washington Post) at the end of this post, but I had to log-in to see the whole article (I live around here & that paper has the most info on D.C.).

Moderators: I have tried - REALLY tried, to make this post as nuetral & factual as humanly possible and I think I accomplished the goal of making it non-partisan/political. As the article points out, the group profiled in the article does not bring lawsuits, lobby, take positions or endorse nominees.

The group on which the article focuses is not really relevant to the Supreme Court case. But, I found the article's factual analysis compliments the one I tried to provide above; here is the portion of the articel (linked below) that sums up the thinking of some of our current Justices, and might give a clue to how this case might play out:

"Central to the [non-partisan group that is associated with one faction among the Justices] is the concept of originalism, the view that the Constitution is a document with a fixed and knowable meaning, rather than one whose principles adjust to contemporary times.

Scalia and Thomas are the idea's most prominent adherents, but Scalia wrote in a new book the organization published this year that while he and Thomas have put originalism "in the game," it "would be foolish to pretend that that philosophy has become (as it once was) the dominant mode of interpretation in the courts, or even that it is the irresistible wave of the future."

Scalia said courts and law schools embrace the alternate view of a "living Constitution" and so too does the ordinary citizen, "who has come to believe that what he violently abhors must be unconstitutional."

"It is no easy task to wean the public, the professoriate and (especially) the judiciary away from such a seductive and judge-empowering philosophy," he said.

There was no argument from the president, however. "In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean," Bush said. "They forgot that our Constitution lives because we respect it enough to adhere to its words."

Such a view is the group's "mission," Calabresi said, and he and Leo point out that the group does not bring lawsuits, lobby, take positions or endorse nominees. But some of the society's most prominent members are part of a growing network of conservative legal groups that do all those things. And Leo took a leave from the group to work with the White House on judicial nominees.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) has been a particular critic of the society, saying that for the Bush administration, knowing the "secret handshake" is the most important qualification a judicial hopeful can have.

Other liberals are more than grudging admirers of the group's success. Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she has probably spoken at Federalist Society events more than at any other organization's except her own. She enjoys "not just preaching to the choir," she said, and finds the debates open and serious. "

LINK TO ARTICLE IN WASHINGTON POST

C.

[CSEMARTIN]

If the political discussions don't stop that will change very quickly.

Could someone please post a link to another forum that is discussing this issue so I can keep reading about it after this thread gets shut down.

[iggyort]

If the political discussions don't stop that will change very quickly.

Could someone please post a link to another forum that is discussing this issue so I can keep reading about it after this thread gets shut down.

Here we are always political

Iggyort

^{The US supreme court will today consider gun control in a private session that could soon explode publicly}.

[Carlos]

The following link to a blog is based on the facts that lead up to Parker/Heller, expalins possible outcomes, and provides and analysis of this case by law professors. I found it useful:

LINK TO BLOG

or try:

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2...happened-1.html

C.

[XRe]

Yep, that's a good one, Carlos Thanks for sharing... I do find it interesting that both sides of the debate are clamoring for this case to be heard. Perhaps its finally time that we get some clarification on the 2nd, for better or worse (and lets pray for the better, from our perspective....)

[Heavy Metal Only]

So when is this whole thing going to be decided?

[AikiDale]

So when is this whole thing going to be decided?

Whenever, if ever, the Supreme Court decides to decide. All this is speculation until the Justices decide to decide or to not decide. Court watchers, pundits, journalists, and ordinary citizens all have an opinion as to what the court will do and what they would like the court to do but it is all worth the electrons it is written with at the moment.

Good thread though....

[JFD]

"The Forum was not created or intended as a place to discuss or debate political issues of any kind - either IPSC, USPSA, or governmental"

Interesting discussion about a subject that's quite political.

With 96+ replies, I guess political discussions are now allowed. Thanks to the moderators for listening to us.

[tightloop]

"The Forum was not created or intended as a place to discuss or debate political issues of any kind - either IPSC, USPSA, or governmental"

Interesting discussion about a subject that's quite political.

With 96+ replies, I guess political discussions are now allowed. Thanks to the moderators for listening to us.

It is usually decided by the tone of the posts and how argumentative they are or become as to whether they get closed or not...Political discussions are NOT allowed....this one is open because there have been no ranting argumentative posts that lamblast one side or the other...however, this one has just about run it's course IMO...

[Miranda]

I hope The Court will take the next step

I keep thinking haven't they decided?

yet?

soon?

anything....?

it is hard to make posts to this thread that are not

"political"

I would like info on the case and I like this thread,

for its news content.

but the two things (news and politics) are always going to be close.

miranda