U.S. justices could decide constitutionality of gun ownership

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: brien And I keep telling everyone it was TJ who used the phrase "endowed by the creator:...not me. I never injected "God" into anything. I never even used the word "God". Good gawd!

So what... TJ is not on this board and you didn't reference Jefferson or put it in quotes, so that means you brought it up as representing your belief.

Jeez, quit trying to deny it... no one cares.


.


.

[brien]

So what... TJ is not on this board and you didn't reference Jefferson or put it in quotes, so that means you brought it up as representing your belief.

Not true. I referenced TJ the first time I posted it. You don't care because you want to ignore it. So be it, Sonart. Like I said, we will see how the court treats this matter.

It has just been announced:

CNSNews.com -- News This Hour

CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will decide whether the ban on owning guns in the District of Columbia is constitutional, a pivotal case that could determine if the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to own firearms

Now all the armchair Constitutionalists will have a front row seat for one of the most important decisions to come out of the USSC on this matter since 1939. Can't wait.

[brien]

[quote]

Quote by: Sonart . Jeez, quit trying to deny it... no one cares.

Here are some comments from people who do care Sonart:


Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to DC Gun Ban -- 11/20/2007

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to DC Gun Ban By Randy Hall CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor November 20, 2007 (CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will decide whether the ban on owning guns in the District of Columbia is constitutional, a pivotal case that could determine if the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to own firearms. At issue is a 31-year-old Washington, D.C., law banning handguns and requiring that all shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and either trigger-locked or disassembled at all times. There is no exception for self-defense. "The Bill of Rights does not end at the District of Columbia's borders, and it includes the right to keep and bear arms," said Alan Gura, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Heller v. District of Columbia. "After three decades of failure trying to control firearms in the District, it's time for law-abiding city residents to be able to defend themselves in their homes," Gura added. "We are confident the Supreme Court will vindicate that right in Washington, D.C., and across the nation." Dick Heller, a District resident who works as an armed security guard during the day but is forbidden by District law from keeping a handgun at home to protect himself, explained: "I want to be able to defend myself and my wife from violent criminals, and the Constitution says I have a right to do that by keeping a gun in my home." "The police can't be everywhere, and they can't protect everyone all the time," he said. "Responsible gun ownership is a basic right we have as American citizens." The Supreme Court has not heard a Second Amendment case since 1939, when it issued a confusing and inconclusive decision in a case involving the interstate transportation of a sawed-off shotgun. However, the case ended before the defendant had the opportunity to establish whether sawed-off shotguns are covered by the word "arms" in the text of the Amendment. Regular shotguns, along with rifles and handguns, are precisely the kind of "arms" the framers had in mind in drafting the Second Amendment, the plaintiffs argue. The District's functional firearms ban defies the framers' obvious intent to ensure that the government could never disarm citizens in America, as other governments have done elsewhere. Clark Neily, a public interest lawyer specializing in constitutional law cases and co-counsel to the Heller plaintiffs said, "The Second Amendment is every bit as much a part of the Bill of Rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion." "The framers of our Constitution made clear that the government has no more business disarming citizens than it has censoring them or telling them what values to hold sacred," Neily said. "The citizens of Washington, D.C. - indeed, all Americans - deserve a clear pronouncement from the nation's highest court on the real meaning of the Second Amendment," said Robert Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and co-counsel to the Heller plaintiffs. "Later cases will decide what gun regulations are constitutional, but an outright ban on all functional firearms clearly is not constitutional," Levy said. Heller promises to be among the most closely watched constitutional law cases in decades. At stake is not just the question of whether people have a constitutional right to own guns, but also the court's willingness to stand up for rights that are expressed in the Constitution, even when those rights are strongly opposed by a vocal minority. 'Excited' Tuesday's announcement sparked comment from Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, who stated in a news release that "the Supreme Court's decision in this case will be extremely significant - the most important decision on guns in nearly 70 years and maybe the most important ever regarding the Second Amendment." He disagreed with the appeals court ruling last March in the Parker v. Heller case, which led to the gun ban being overturned. "By agreeing to hear the appeal by the District of Columbia in the Parker/Heller case, the U.S. Supreme Court has the chance to reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety," Helmke said. The decision in the Parker case "ignored longstanding Supreme Court precedent, discounted the express language of the Second Amendment and substituted its policy preferences for those of the District's elected representatives," he added. "We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will reverse this flawed ruling." Also on Tuesday, Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb said in a release of his own that he is "excited" about the Supreme Court's announcement. "An affirmative ruling by the Supreme Court will probably not be the death knell for the extremist citizen disarmament movement," Gottlieb said, "but it will properly cripple their campaign to destroy an important civil right, the one that protects all of our other rights." "The insidious effort to strip American citizens of their firearms rights, while at the same time permanently harming public safety, must end," he added. "The Washington, D.C., gun ban has been a monumental failure, and the crime statistics prove that," Gottlieb said. "For almost 70 years, gun banners have deliberately misinterpreted and misrepresented the high court's language in the U.S. v Miller ruling in 1939. "It is long past the time that this important issue be put to rest, and the Heller case will provide the court with that opportunity," he added. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the legal strategy behind the case has been under consideration for at least five years, and the U.S. House of Representatives voted to overturn the D.C. gun ban in 2004 and again in 2005. Then, last March, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned the ban, giving gun rights advocates a major victory in their long battle over the restrictions. The ruling drew strong reaction from both sides of the gun control issue. One group called the decision "'judicial activism' at its absolute worst" and another hailed it as "a tremendous victory for the common man." Soon afterwards, lawyers involved in the case said that attempts by "well-meaning members of Congress" to repeal the ban could backfire by keeping the issue out of the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral arguments will most likely be scheduled for March, with a decision expected by June 2008

So be it.

[Sonart]

.

Arguments scheduled for March???? Sheesh.


.

[Milton Bradley]

Well Sonart, that was a nice condecending post, er, uh, diatribe. ( I thought you had dark hair. )

Quote by: Sonart I don't recall that private American citizens, bearing their private arms, won WWII. Maybe you can fill me in.

Actually, it was the private citizen, who, because he was allowed to own individual arms, was able to invent the modern weapons that allowed us to win those wars.


Without the ability to persue ones own interests, whos to say John Browning would have ever gravitated towards weapon design?


You also conveniently overlook the Nineth Amendment, which reserves "all rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the America citizen".


The articulated rights were the bare minimum required to get the vote to pass.

[Zeebadee]

From the link:

"Soon afterwards, lawyers involved in the case said that attempts by "well-meaning members of Congress" to repeal the ban could backfire by keeping the issue out of the U.S. Supreme Court."

This, I predict, is exactly what will happen. Our political "leaders" are not going to want to have to go on record taking a stand one way or the other on this issue.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Praxius Well considdering most in the US have this complete addiction to their firearms to the point where most feel not safe unless they have one in their possesions, and somehow confused wording for a Militia and "Arms" as somehow being their own right to owning firearms for their personal use.... it's more so common sense that for the most part, this is how the majority view them.

I own a significant number of firearms. For the past 6+ months, those firearms have not been in my posession for reasons beyond this discussion.

Personally, I've not felt particularly unsafe. I would like to have my guns back, and I expect I will in the next couple of weeks. However, no particular strain in this regard.

I believe this anecdote might disprove your generalization above. I would assume your qualification of "most" would refer to those that don't own firearms, of which I don't fit that category.

Try again about "our" addictions.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

[quote=Sonart;454163And then, four score and seven years later, Abraham Lincoln was so convinced that allowing an armed rebellion to succeed meant the complete failure of those "foundations of our political system" that he fought a massive war to prove no such insurrection could ever succeed.[/QUOTE]

Abraham Lincoln was a statist, tyrannical, asshole.

Keith

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Actually, it was the private citizen, who, because he was allowed to own individual arms, was able to invent the modern weapons that allowed us to win those wars. Without the ability to persue ones own interests, whos to say John Browning would have ever gravitated towards weapon design?

Gosh, I guess that explains why the Germans were so far ahead of us in light weapons development before WWII, or why subsequently the most successful assault rifle and submachine gun in the world were invented by Soviets... Mikhail Kalashnikov and Georgii Shpagin.

You're reaching, Milton.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Try again about "our" addictions.

You're one person, Keith, but it does remind me of when California passed it's anti-assault weapons law. By the thousands men rushed out to buy "assault style rifles" before the law took effect. What on earth was that about??? Owning such a gun didn't matter until the government said they couldn't???? Praxius is wrong, gun lovers aren't so much addicted as they are the maturity level of 4 yr-olds. Present company excepted, I'm sure.

"Don't you dare put your finger in the pudding!"

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Abraham Lincoln was a statist, tyrannical, asshole.

Sure thing, Keith. Whatever you say.

.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: Gosh, I guess that explains why the Germans were so far ahead of us in light weapons development before WWII,

They were preparing for war, while we were preparing for peace. That is why they had better designed weapons at the outset of the war.

Sonart said: or why subsequently the most successful assault rifle and submachine gun in the world were invented by Soviets... Mikhail Kalashnikov and Georgii Shpagin.

No doubt, fantastic designs, but as with all soviet weapons, lacking in interchangeability, lacking accuracy compared to their American rivals, and you forget to mention that occassionally the underdogs beat the favorite by one measure, for a short time.

Yes, the Kalishnikov is a wonderfuul weapon, that was outdated and became "second" in its class shortly after its "battlefield introduction", due to the American free market seeing a need to be filled.

Sonart said: You're one person, Keith, but it does remind me of when California passed it's anti-assault weapons law. By the thousands men rushed out to buy "assault style rifles" before the law took effect. What on earth was that about???

Many people wanted those types of weapons, but put it off until they could better afford the purchase. When the Assault-Weapons ban came out, many many people, myself included, decided the time to wait for more affordability was over, and it was time to buy. By the way, due to pricing, I bought an "outdated" Maadi, which is a AK-47, with lots of hi-capacity magazines.

Sonart said:
Owning such a gun didn't matter until the government said they couldn't????

Close. Its not that it didn't matter prior, its that people were taking their time to pick and choose, play the pricing, and look for their best deals on their most favored arms. Once it became clear that the government was taking a step toward tyranny, necessity to purchase outweighed saving a few dollars.

Sonart said: Praxius is wrong, gun lovers aren't so much addicted as they are the maturity level of 4 yr-olds. Present company excepted, I'm sure.

Nice insult, but coming from you its a form of flattery.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Yes, the Kalishnikov is a wonderfuul weapon, that was outdated and became "second" in its class shortly after its "battlefield introduction", due to the American free market seeing a need to be filled.

What are you talking about? The AK-47 remains the most ubiquitous, most popular military light arm in the world, specifically because it fills a huge, free-market niche. It's effective, extremely reliable and dirt cheap.

You may consider the American M16A2 or some such to be the Ferrari of assault rifles, but how many people can afford Ferraris? Besides, many countries have developed outstanding light weapons, while maintaining strict private gun control.

Quote by: Milton Bradley By the way, due to pricing, I bought an "outdated" Maadi, which is a AK-47, with lots of hi-capacity magazines.

Like I said, how many people can afford Ferraris. Hi-tech American "superiority" seems suited only for professional standing armies supported by wealthy, super-power governments.

I assume you plan to use your Maadi in the upcoming revolution. Good luck with that.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Close. Its not that it didn't matter prior, its that people were taking their time to pick and choose, play the pricing, and look for their best deals on their most favored arms.

Right... whatever you say.

Nice insult, but coming from you its a form of flattery.

Hey, I've hung out with lots and lots of gun loons. It's just an objective observation.

.

[Milton Bradley]

There you go attributing the the wrong person to the quotes again.


Sheesh

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: What are you talking about? The AK-47 remains the most ubiquitous, most popular military light arm in the world, specifically because it fills a huge, free-market niche. It's effective, extremely reliable and dirt cheap.

I didn't deny ANY of that. Read what I said. It fails to compare to many of its rivals, but the bulk of those rivals are in higher price ranges.

So yes, its effective, but less effective. Its a great design, but not the best. It works well, but can be made to work better.

I should know, I own and appreciate one.

Sonart said: You may consider the American M16A2 or some such to be the Ferrari of assault rifles, but how many people can afford Ferraris?

Not many, when the government forces you to go out and buy an assualt rifle in the lurch, because of new unconstitutional legislation being pushed through that would prevent you from saving more for a better weapon. Again, I should know, I was in that boat.

After making my purchase, I appreciate the weapon for what it is, but I would have preferred a .308 NATO battle rifle, and plan on buying a few.

.223 rifles and carbine are nice, but I want stopping power, range and accuracy, and the heaviest bullet I can throw with repeatability from medium to long range. .223's have a high decline in stopping power as the yardage increases.

Sonart said: Besides, many countries have developed outstanding light weapons, while maintaining strict private gun control.

Many countries didn't make their claim to fame the cause of liberty and individual responsibility, or being a nation of self government, limited from infringing on the rights of individuals.

Regardless, many countries leech off of our pioneering designs, and documented research. Yes, they can maintain and run "counterfeitting" operations, but most of the innovation comes from the individual free-spirits who operate in the most libertarian systems, since that is where genius makes the most profit.

Sonart said: Like I said, how many people can afford Ferraris. Hi-tech American "superiority" seems suited only for professional standing armies supported by wealthy, super-power governments.

Not true at all, but there are always people caught in the lurch when absurd legislation is pushed through.

Sonart said: I assume you plan to use your Maadi in the upcoming revolution. Good luck with that.

No luck required, just training, and I have plenty.

My arms are for defense Sonart.

Sonart said: Right... whatever you say.

It usually is when speaking of firearms.

Sonart said: Hey, I've hung out with lots and lots of gun loons. It's just an objective observation.

As if you were capable of such acts as being objective.....

...who knows, perhaps you are and you have a switch that you can turn on and off. If so, maybe that switch will break in the on-position someday and we can have a reasonable debate.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley There you go attributing the the wrong person to the quotes again.

Then you should be used to it by now. Apparently I'm partially dyslexic... you gonna pick on the handicapped?

Actually, I did eventually catch the mistake, but apparently after a certain amount of time you can't go back and edit. Very frustrating cuz I just knew you'd bust my chops for it.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I didn't deny ANY of that. Read what I said. It fails to compare to many of its rivals, but the bulk of those rivals are in higher price ranges.

What you said, Osborn, was this...

--"Actually, it was the private citizen, who, because he was allowed to own individual arms, was able to invent the modern weapons that allowed us to win those wars."--

It's a silly statement because, as I just pointed out, private citizens, many - most - from countries with strict gun control, have also invented many of the finest modern weapons in the world, including the British, the French and the Germans, who invented the first assault rifle with the Sturmgewehr 44.

There's an extremely powerful argument to be made that we didn't win WWII, the Soviets did, meaning it was won by the ubiquitous PPS submachine gun.

Then again, by your standards, it was the AK-47 that defeated us in Vietnam.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Not many, when the government forces you to go out and buy an assault rifle in the lurch, because of new unconstitutional legislation being pushed through that would prevent you from saving more for a better weapon.

Unconstitutional according to whom? That law was challenged and upheld in SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER in Dec, 2002. I suppose it could have been challenged up to the Supreme Court as a violation of your 2nd Amendment rights, but no one chose to do so.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Many countries didn't make their claim to fame the cause of liberty and individual responsibility, or being a nation of self government, limited from infringing on the rights of individuals.

So what? You declared that private citizens with 2nd Amendment rights made it possible to invent superior weapons. No, I said, private citizens without those rights from all over the world have invented many superior weapons. So now you're saying what?... Yeah, but they weren't private citizens with 2nd Amendment rights?

Isn't that sorta begging the question???

Quote by: Osborn F Enready .223 rifles and carbine are nice, but I want stopping power, range and accuracy, and the heaviest bullet I can throw with repeatability from medium to long range. .223's have a high decline in stopping power as the yardage increases.

Except that the entire reason for the existence of assault rifles is that most fighting takes place within 300 yards, so what's important isn't range and accuracy but firepower and reliability, at which your AK-47 clone excels.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Not true at all, but there are always people caught in the lurch when absurd legislation is pushed through.

Well by golly, someone oughta challenge that legislation as a violation of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready ...who knows, perhaps you are and you have a switch that you can turn on and off. If so, maybe that switch will break in the on-position someday and we can have a reasonable debate.

Where have I not been reasonable or objective? That we're a violent nation? We are... it's quantifiable. That our violent nature stems from our gun lust? Look around you... our popular culture is immersed in gun violence, vastly more so than other cultures. Look at yourself... you see problems and what's your solution??? Change within the system? Peaceful civil disobedience? No, your solution is that we should pick up guns and start a blood bath.

It can't possibly be my argument regarding the 2nd Amendment... that's about as reasoned and objective as someone can possibly get, based entirely on the Constitution itself and case law.

.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: No, your solution is that we should pick up guns and start a blood bath.

See, that is nonsense, and far from objective, and I am about tired of dealing with your slander.

Good day Sonart, my tolerance of you just dried up I think.

[Milton Bradley]

I notice Sonart is not resurecting these discussions we were having when he went on, uh, vacation, but then there are some unanswered questions that he seems to be refusing to answer.

[Muser]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I notice Sonart is not resurecting these discussions we were having when he went on, uh, vacation, but then there are some unanswered questions that he seems to be refusing to answer.

I'd certainly welcome an answer to this assertion:

Quote by: Sonart That our violent nature stems from our gun lust?

Gun lust begets violence? That's rather putting the cart before the horse. One only need look to Switzerland to understand that it's the societal structure and citizens themselves that determine the violence - not the gun itself. It's the societal ills of the US and the multitude of ways (how long ya got?) that violence and the criminal element are bred into its citizens that are the core problems needing to be addressed.

[adam10312]

Quote by: Praxius Ha ha ha ha.... oh man, let me wipe that tear from my eye..... I find US priorities humorous at times. A corrupt government, talk of Universal Health Care, heading into new war talks with Iran and WWIII..... and yet try and take away your guns and then you guys speak about revolutions? *shrugs* oh well. But now you're trying to throw many various quotes together to get one meaning: Understood and I agree.... but this states nothing about firearms in paticular. I read an aknowlegement of the evils with firearms being everywhere..... where does he in paticular set forth the rights to everyone using these and this quote overpowering what it said in the constitution about the Militia? They deserve a place of honor is what I see, but where is the connection to the constitution? This could have easily been a personal opinion, like how he likes blueberry pie.... This doesn't mean Firearms alone either..... this could go from sling shots, to everyone having their own personal battle tank. Then what does this say about today's US? And how is having a beretta define your "Liberty?" ~ Isn't this whole mentality of having a gun the same thing as Temoporary Safety? Once again.... where the hell does this relate to having the rights to have firearms specifically within your home? All men capable of bearing arms is in reference to age and health.... not a right to actually having one. This is a core explination of what a Militia is.... as we have them here as well. Still waiting for a solid explination..... Once again.... where is the connection to firearms? I think you've been trying to look too far into words to justify your stance. These beliefs are in many other countries, including my own, yet we still don't require to be loaded with guns in our homes for any of this. An offense to keep all arms yes.... restricting the use of common citizens from using firearms unless in a time of revolt or use of local militia isn't. This quote of course not only doesn't relate to firearms once again.... but makes no sense.... In order for an individual to assert their social power and participation in polotics is by a gun?.... sorry.... "Arms" not "Firearms?" ~ I think I see where the country slipped up in mentality. Sure.... but as of yet.... this discussion has not gotten beyond what is constitutional.... the right to own a firearm against robbers or violent offenders in society is not what your constitution is upholding from what I read, neither are any of your quotes at that. The common knowlege, if based around the above, is greatly flawed.

They don't have to mention firearms... firearms fall into the category of arms. What you are saying is that those statements should have specifically listed every type of arms they felt fit into that category, which is obviously incorrect. If they specifically mentioned firearms, and someone was trying to apply it to other kinds of arms, then everything above would have made sense.

[mark3748]

Quote by: adam10312 They don't have to mention firearms... firearms fall into the category of arms. What you are saying is that those statements should have specifically listed every type of arms they felt fit into that category, which is obviously incorrect. If they specifically mentioned firearms, and someone was trying to apply it to other kinds of arms, then everything above would have made sense.

I've noticed that Prax tends to do this a lot, whenever someone says something about arms, to him it has nothing to do with firearms....

[Sonart]

.

Quote: