DC Handgun ban goes to the Supreme Court.

[zembonez]

Worth a quick read. 2nd amendment basically on trial at the Supreme Court level. It's about Washington DC's handgun ban but a ruling could make waves across the country.

GUN BAN ARTICLE

 

[Texas1911]

This is going to be the Roe vs. Wade for the 2nd Amendment.

I believe that the 14th, 2nd, and 9th Amendments will uphold our rights as gun owners. Here is a statement from a former Supreme Court judge regarding the 9th Amendment's powers.

"[T]he Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement."

This is the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is the 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This is the 14th Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

If this is not ruled in our favor then the Supreme Court should be hung for treason, and all that approved it in Congress should already have been sacked for the blaspheme against the Law of the Land.

 

[murfdog]

2nd Amendment

This is going to be the Roe vs. Wade for the 2nd Amendment.

I believe that the 14th, 2nd, and 9th Amendments will uphold our rights as gun owners. Here is a statement from a former Supreme Court judge regarding the 9th Amendment's powers.

"[T]he Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement."

This is the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is the 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This is the 14th Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

If this is not ruled in our favor then the Supreme Court should be hung for treason, and all that approved it in Congress should already have been sacked for the blaspheme against the Law of the Land.

+1 could not have said it better myself.

 

[WyattT]

here we go boys, in a month, everything will be different, for better or worse.

 

[zembonez]

If they rule on law as it is written and abide by the constitution, then we will be happy with the result.

If they play Supreme Court Gods and legislate from the bench, prepare for a fight.

 

[phatcyclist]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Just a few memorable snippets.

Chief Justice Roberts asks why the Framers would refer to "the right of the people" if the Second Amendment was not intended to protect an individual right.

Justice Kennedy says the first clause of the Second Amendment can be read as reaffirming the militia clauses, and can be read to support an individual right to bear arms.

Justice Scalia says he sees no contradiction between reading the second clause as guaranteeing an individual right and the first clause as affirming the importance of the militia. "The two clauses go together beautifully," Scalia says.

This is going well for us right now.

 

[Slotback]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
Chief Justice Roberts asks why the Framers would refer to "the right of the people" if the Second Amendment was not intended to protect an individual right.

I believe that in many other SC decisions, the term "the people" was construed to mean an individual. If that is the case, then we are in great shape from that angle. I think the Justices have their minds made up. We won't get everything, but it is a start.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

God lets keep our fingers crossed and hope things fare well with our side of the debate. Man a minute by minute update of the proceedings?! This seems to be one of the most hotly contested debates around, as well it should be.

 

[David]

God damned DC counsel and Respondents counsel are all retards.

 

[HKpre86]

Just heard on Fox news that it will be June before we find out what they decide?

 

[David]

Just heard on Fox news that it will be June before we find out what they decide?

Each justice writes up an opinion to be filed and published. Im actually surprised to hear it will be that soon.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

I really wish someone would come out and directly verbally attack these liberals and refute every emotional claim they make with actual facts to prove they are just full of sh*t. All of the facts and crime data that I know of only support our side.

 

[Texas1911]

"In all, some 64 different briefs were filed, from more than 80 groups and individuals. Among those supporting the gun rights plaintiffs were the NRA, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense, and the transgender group Pink Pistols."

Even the Diva's support the bill!

 

[murfdog]

Freedom

The only amendments the liberals want to keep are the ones that protect the Bad Guys not the honest, hard working and law abiding citizens.I love my country but loathe the politicians that only care about being re-elected and lining there pockets with our hard earned tax dollars.This ruling could change the face of America for a very long time.Well with that being said I need to take my blood pressure medicine and relax.FOR NOW!!

 

[midnightrider]

The reason for the DC gun-ban in the first place was because of all the gun violence right? Well then has it stopped the violence or just left the innocent helpless?
The liberal mindset that thinks just because there is a ban that it will stop the BG from using guns is totally alien to me. Same for the idea that if they take away my right to bear arms that somehow they will be safer.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

The enraging thing is that these liberals are too ignorant to even look at the facts. Since the ban was enacted, violent crime and murder has not significantly dropped and I think for several years it has actually increased. On top of that, according to crime data collected by the FBI, they have a drastically higher violent crime rate compared to similar size or slightly larger cities. All this should add up to an answer to their questions, yet they completely ignore this aspect. Something doesn't work? Well then you should try something else, such as letting people defend themselves and letting criminals know more people in their area own guns. We just need to jail all liberals, they are too stupid for their own good and certainly too stupid to have any influence in politics whatsoever. Something tells me they would even find a way to screw up at license plate production in jail. Here's some facts to back up the FBI statement:

 

[DrBart2]

This may have been posted by someone already but check out this research.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

It pretty much explains it all, but remember, anti-gun types don't care about facts, they just go on how they FEEL about it.

Besides, my understanding of the people who live in Washington DC is that most have criminal records. So, there are probably only a hand full of residents who would qualify to own a gun. Unfortunately, no matter what the ruling, if guns are not totally banned, there will continue to be a fight from the liberals.

 

[TxShooter]

Supreme Court

I believe we will fair well in this decision from the court. A majority the justices appear to view the second amendment as a guaruntee of thew individuals right to keep and bear arms. It is just too bad that we will be waiting until June or July to see what the actual decision is and even longer to see what effect it will actually have on gun owners.

Also, here are a few little gems from some of the founding fathers in relation to the individuals right to keep and bear arms:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"

George Washington


"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Thomas Jefferson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined"

Patrick Henry


"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Thomas Jefferson


"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Thomas Jefferson


"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason


"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone,"

James Madison




"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"

Noah Webster



"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"

Tench Coxe



"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."

George Mason



"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"

Samuel Adams



"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."

[Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]



"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."

[People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]



"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."

[State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]



"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

[Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

 

[Furyataurus]

From what I've heard the SCOTUS will make a ruling on 6/10/08. I think 11:30 ET.

 

[Texas Armadillo]

From what I've heard the SCOTUS will make a ruling on 6/10/08. I think 11:30 ET.

So... today is the day??? C'mon folks, make us proud!


Concerning some of the other comments in this thread...

One of the "dims" arguments (especially against high cap mags) is that a lunatic can kill more people with a gun than he can without it. The recent incident in Japan where a man drove his car into some people and then jumped out and started knifing people for 5 minutes seems to dispell that farce. At least to me. But I doubt seriously that the dims will admit it. If someone wants to take out a lot of folks, he will think of a way to do it. All it would have taken in Japan to stop that guy is one person with a gun willing to use it.

You cannot outlaw all guns, knives, cars, ball bats, and crow bars, and expect this behavior to stop. Heck, in Japan there seems to be a fad now to kill themselves with toxic fumes made from household products. How long before some jerk starts dropping toxic bombs in subways again? It's the people commiting the crimes not their method so the people are the problem.

Trying to baby proof society the same way you baby proof your house is so insane as to be laughable. But that is what the dims want to do. It is a perfect example of how dims want to control every facet of other peoples lives as if everyone was a baby but them. All because they know what is best for us. These very same dims are the parents you see that don't correct their children. If they see their child drawing on the wall with a crayon they simply take the crayon and say "no"... politely. The child then wanders off to find another writing tool and the process is repeated. The dumb parent (dim) has not realized the issue is the child not the crayon. May I ask how you would handle this situation? The same way I would I'll wager. The child needs to be informed in a way he understands that the action of drawing on the wall at all is not allowed. Once accomplished, he can have the crayon back to use for its intended purpose. We can't keep knives and such out of the hands of people locked up in prison... why would anyone think that outlawing guns will keep them out of criminals hands on the street? Think about it...

Someone recently wrote that in the past lunatics would just blow their own head off when they wanted to die. Now days the idiots seem to think it's better to try to take as many people with them as they can. Again... it's not the crayon that is the problem and taking everyones crayons away is stupid to say the least.

I wanted to write a little more and proof read this, but I gotta goback to work...