Heller Struck Down

[Gunny]

Honestly, I think it's pretty clear that there is little to no correlation between tighter gun laws and higher crime rates. But that isn't what interests me about the case.

As I've always said, I'm all about balance on this issue. And I was really hoping that with the Court taking the issue on fully for the first time in our history, that the decision wouldn't be such an insult to its readers. I was really hoping it would be something briliant, regardless of outcome.

I disagree. I think it's pretty clear that the less strict the gun laws, the less crimes are committed with guns.

What brilliant outcome could there be? Either the 2nd Amendment does or does not guarantee the right to gun ownership by private citizens. The court ruled it does. For those of us that have always been proponents of gun ownership, there was never anything brilliant about it. It's always been a prety celar-cut no-brainer.

It takes purposeful misinterpretation, dishonest literalization, and basically readng something in it that is not there to come to any other conclusion.

 

[jreeves]

I disagree. I think it's pretty clear that the less strict the gun laws, the less crimes are committed with guns.

What brilliant outcome could there be? Either the 2nd Amendment does or does not guarantee the right to gun ownership by private citizens. The court ruled it does. For those of us that have always been proponents of gun ownership, there was never anything brilliant about it. It's always been a prety celar-cut no-brainer.

It takes purposeful misinterpretation, dishonest literalization, and basically readng something in it that is not there to come to any other conclusion.

I would love to see all of the liberals calling for banning guns to live in South East DC without a gun. Some of them may change their positions.

 

[Ninja]

Antonin Scalia: Change We Can Believe In

 

[Gunny]

I would love to see all of the liberals calling for banning guns to live in South East DC without a gun. Some of them may change their positions.

Back in the day, I lived in SE DC just across the Maryland line. Used to drive through there occasionally on my way somewhere. The Washington Navy Yard is there as well.

Wasn't a nice place when I was a kid, and wasn't a nice place when I was stationed there and I wouldn live in SE DC for all the tea in China.

 

[jreeves]

Back in the day, I lived in SE DC just across the Maryland line. Used to drive through there occasionally on my way somewhere. The Washington Navy Yard is there as well.

Wasn't a nice place when I was a kid, and wasn't a nice place when I was stationed there and I wouldn live in SE DC for all the tea in China.

I've drove through there in the car. But I definitely wouldn't won't to have my car break down there, especially at night.

 

[wayne]

So Jillian, what is it about the overturning of a law that barred law-abiding American citizens from owning functional rifles and shotguns, and ALL handguns, that has you so upset?

Personally, I wish there was a way to impeach the 4 who dissented. Anyone who could get such a simple, clear-cut issue that wrong is clearly fucked in the head and in no way, shape or form fit to serve on the court.

I concur.

 

[wayne]

You mean Ruth Bader Ginsberg? She didn't write the dissenting opinions.

BTW, just for fun, you should really read the dissent. It was one of the snarkiest (and best) I've ever read.... shows what a real constitutional scholar can do.

That don't make it correct.

 

[Ninja]

Step the fuck aside, anti-gunners.

30 years of radical, country-wide anti-gun legislation ended today.

We're running the fucking show now, bitches.

 

[ReillyT]

Step the fuck aside, anti-gunners.

30 years of radical, country-wide anti-gun legislation ended today.

I am pretty sure the opinion leaves room for regulation, even if less regulation than that proposed in Washington, DC.

We're running the fucking show now, bitches.

Are you 12?

 

[Ninja]

WAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gloat-Fest 2008, bitch

 

[Ninja]

I am pretty sure the opinion leaves room for regulation, even if less regulation than that proposed in Washington, DC.

We'll find out, since there are more than a few potential test cases here in CA to challenge CCW laws, LEO exemption from what's known as the "unsafe handgun list," our state AW ban, magazine capacity restrictions, etc.

EDIT: There have already been multiple lawsuits filed in federal court challenging the CCW issuance policies of multiple sheriffs and chief LEOs in the past few months, with more to come. As I recall, a few weeks ago the police chief of Santa Maria's motion to dismiss was literally laughed at by a federal judge in Los Angeles.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I do not see how the ruling has anything to do with concealed carry. The Supreme Court was clear, reasonable restrictions can be enforced and passed.

The right to own weapons does not equate to a universal right with no restrictions on carrying said weapons in public. Anyone that thinks it does is deluded.

Now I do agree that in a lot of places there are restrictions that are un reasonable. BUT I do not subscribed to the idea that we have an unrestricted right to pack heat.

What is unreasonable? A Law that allows a sheriff to turn down a CC permit for no reason other then his personal dislike for the law. However if the State has NO CC law , then no one is being unreasonable by NOT allowing you to carry concealed.

What is unreasonable? A law that bans supposed " assault weapons" or restricts magazine sizes for no other reason than a revolver can only hold 6 rounds.

However I doubt anyone is going to get traction on attempts to overturn HUNTING laws that require plugs in shotguns. Though if the law is a State wide requirement for plugs on all shotguns for any reason, that can be construed as unreasonable.

Cities can still enact and enforce reasonable laws on open carry and concealed carry of firearms in public places. The test will come when they try to claim you can not transport said weapons from point of purchase to home or from home to some other location.

 

[Ninja]

Nothing that I mentioned is incongruous with any of what you posted.

We have CC, but it's sheriff's discretion (or what's called "may issue"). And there are many, many instances where a peon with a just cause has been denied, while a political crony lacking just cause has been issued a permit.

As far as how Heller relates to CCW, well... Did you read the opinion (not being a smartass, honest question)? Scalia's opinion states that the 2A is an individual right for self-defense both inside and outside of the home.

In the past, listing "self-defense" on your just cause statement was a kiss of death in most CA counties. I think Sheriff's and CLEO's will have a harder time denying these types of applications in the future, or at least once all of the lawsuits I mentioned above are resolved in federal court - now that Heller has been resolved.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I do not have a permit, though there is a CC law in this State. It costs a lot of money to get it. You have to take a class for 4 to 600 dollars and pass, then pay a large fee to recieve the license. THEN you can not really carry cause every business has the right to post a sign saying you are not allowed to carry in their building or property.

I hope the decision effects THAT. Doesn't change the fact that a State is not compelled to pass a CC permit at all.

California is fucked up and I suspect lots of challenges will be done there. New York city is another one with a nearly impossible burden to get a permit just to own a weapon. Then we have Morton Grove and other Cities with out right bans.

I wouldn't live in California if you paid me. I left Washington State behind because it has become California light. Always thought I would live and die in that State.

 

[manifold]

Money Quote from an anti gun justice. Never mind he has an armed guard protecting his sorry ass.


Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Yeah, it's only a right in areas where it's not needed!! Way to go Justice Dillhole! tff!

rep for LordBrownEye.

 

[manifold]

Really? If it was so simple, why was there no analysis that addressed the militia issue? The Second doesn't exist piecemeal.

Why is that so many people err on the side of interpretting a broader scope of protection than literally enumerated in every amendment of the Bill of Rights except the 2nd, on which they do the exact opposite?

 

[AtlasShrieked]

MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE MILITIA = PEOPLE

you have a great point. but is it taken out of context in a way that misrepresents things?

let us look at 'militia' and 'people' in the constitution.

The Constitution makes distinctions between the Federal government, the governments of the States and 'the people'. You can check it out in the 10th amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

earlier I posted the 2nd from wikipedia as it contains both versions
here we go...

Text

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
“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.”

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
“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.”

Both versions are commonly used in official government publications. The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and hangs in the National Archives.
​

so the constitution is talking about a 'well regulated' militia. who regulates a militia for the purposes of the security of a free state?

 

[AtlasShrieked]

Why is that so many people err on the side of interpretting a broader scope of protection than literally enumerated in every amendment of the Bill of Rights except the 2nd, on which they do the exact opposite?

the 2nd amendment (in both versions) quite specifically states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is premised upon the need for a well regulated militia.

---

can anyone disagree with that?

 

[AtlasShrieked]

just the facts ma'am...

In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time, probably at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short.

Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.[30]

A related concept is the jury, which can be regarded as a specialized form of militia convened to render a verdict in a court proceeding (known as a petit jury or trial jury) or to investigate a public matter and render a presentment or indictment (grand jury).[31]

With the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, control of the army and the power to direct the militia of the states was concurrently delegated to the federal Congress.[32]

The Militia Clauses gave Congress authority for "organizing, arming, and disciplining" the militia, and "governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States", with the States retaining authority to appoint officers and to impose the training specified by Congress.

Proponents describe a key element in the concept of "militia" was that to be "genuine" it not be a "select militia", composed of an unrepresentative subset of the population. This was an argument presented in the ratification debates.[33]

The first legislation on the subject was The Militia Act of 1792 which provided, in part:
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock....

During the nineteenth century, each of the states maintained its militia differently, some more than others. Prior to the Civil War, militia units were sometimes used by southern states for slave control. In free states, Republican militias - called "Wide Awakes" - sided with abolitionists in sometimes violent confrontations with Federal authorities.[34]

During Reconstruction after the Civil War, Republican state governments had militias composed almost entirely of freed slaves because conservative whites did not participate. Their deployment to maintain order in the former Confederate states, caused increased resentment among Southern whites.[35]

The war did not end with Lee's surrender at Appomattox and continued to be fought by insurgent groups through Reconstruction.

It was within the power of the old Congress to expedite or block the ratification of the new Constitution.