SCOTUS: 2nd Amendment and what the majority said.

[Foxfyre]

Last I saw, over 70% of populace agreed with the individuals right argument.

A recent Rasmussen poll showed that a large majority of people do not want guns, even handguns, banned in their city, and are evenly divided on stronger gun control laws.

Going to your earlier post, however, you are correct that the SCOTUS vote should have been 7-0. We have four justices sitting on the Supreme Court who essentially ignored their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States that affords the citizens the right to bear arms. That right does not presume the right to bear arms just any old place they want to, but it sure as hell presumes the right to own firearms. Four justices would have given a city the ability to take away that right.

If any part of the Constitution can be overturned by the Supreme Court, all of it becomes worthless, yet we have four justices who attempted to do just that.

This should be forefront in the mind of those who will vote on our next President come November. That President is likely to appoint a Supreme Court justice or two.

 

[Annie]

A recent Rasmussen poll showed that a large majority of people do not want guns, even handguns, banned in their city, and are evenly divided on stronger gun control laws.

Going to your earlier post, however, you are correct that the SCOTUS vote should have been 7-0. We have four justices sitting on the Supreme Court who essentially ignored their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States that affords the citizens the right to bear arms. That right does not presume the right to bear arms just any old place they want to, but it sure as hell presumes the right to own firearms. Four justices would have given a city the ability to take away that right.

If any part of the Constitution can be overturned by the Supreme Court, all of it becomes worthless, yet we have four justices who attempted to do just that.

This should be forefront in the mind of those who will vote on our next President come November. That President is likely to appoint a Supreme Court justice or two.

Thus my contention that McCain should make this a premiere issue in the campaign, SCOTUS appointments count. On the other hand, Obama may do the same regarding the WOT and pro-choice.

 

[AllieBaba]

Last I saw, over 70% of populace agreed with the individuals right argument.

But those are all just "stupid" people who don't understand what's best for them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thus my contention that McCain should make this a premiere issue in the campaign, SCOTUS appointments count. On the other hand, Obama may do the same regarding the WOT and pro-choice.

McCain at least has pledged to nominate strict constructionists; i.e. justices who will uphold their oath to defend the Constitution and who won't be attempting to nullify any part of it or make new law with rulings from the bench. [/QUOTE]

You do understand there's no such thing as "strict constructionism", right?

It's a made up construct. It doesn't exist and the fact that the Court reviews legislation at all derives from caselaw (marbury v madison).

But you guys know better because right wing pundits tell you it's so. *rolls eyes*

 

[Reality]

All their doing IMO is making sure that the gun owning crazies that are out their (AKA Dale Gribble) don't start toting a gun around without the proper licensing. The SC is upholding to right to own guns while insisting that citizens still follow the current gun-laws in place. (I.E. Concealed Carry License, etc...) They're basically saying that it is unconstitutional to band people from owning guns like the D.C. ban suggests. It is unconstitutional to inact gun laws that prohibit people from owning a certain type of gun, much less direct people what they may or may not do in their own home. Basically, the SC doesn't want people to start wearing guns on their hips like the Old West just because the SC said it was ok to own guns...

I think this is ridiculous. If the amendment says that the right to bear shall not be infringed, and that is read to apply to the individual, then licensing is an infringement.

 

[Reality]

Yep, if the court reflected the American people, the decision would have been 7-2. They don't. With that said: McCain should use this as a linchpin towards election. Obama will certainly use the war. May the best argument win.

It is not the court's job to represent the American people. If they were, they would be politicians.

 

[Foxfyre]

McCain at least has pledged to nominate strict constructionists; i.e. justices who will uphold their oath to defend the Constitution and who won't be attempting to nullify any part of it or make new law with rulings from the bench.

You do understand there's no such thing as "strict constructionism", right?

It's a made up construct. It doesn't exist and the fact that the Court reviews legislation at all derives from caselaw (marbury v madison).

But you guys know better because right wing pundits tell you it's so. *rolls eyes*

[/QUOTE]

Okay, I'm lodging an official protest here.

This part of the above post quoted

You do understand there's no such thing as "strict constructionism", right?

It's a made up construct. It doesn't exist and the fact that the Court reviews legislation at all derives from caselaw (marbury v madison).

But you guys know better because right wing pundits tell you it's so. *rolls eyes*

are not my words and I didn't quote or post them but they appear to be attributed to me.

How did this happen and how do I prevent it from happening again?

 

[Annie]

Okay, I'm lodging an official protest here.

This part of the above post quoted

are not my words and I didn't quote or post them but they appear to be attributed to me.

How did this happen and how do I prevent it from happening again?

I wondered about that, didn't sound like you.

 

[BrianH]

I think this is ridiculous. If the amendment says that the right to bear shall not be infringed, and that is read to apply to the individual, then licensing is an infringement.

I, personally, agree with you. I'm not quite sure, as far as licensing goes, what each state requires in regards to just strictly owning a firearm. I know in Texas you don't have to register your firearm. However, if you wish to carry a concealed firearm, then you have to obtain a concealed carry permit via course and certification. I think this is a good thing on a grand scale because it helps police to weed out the law-abiding citizens from the criminals. I know also in Texas you can carry in your vehicle a little easier than before. Used to, you had to prove that you were traveling, transporting it, or hunting. Now, the court has to prove that you weren't. This is really just written law, and not a real common problem where I live. Most rural police officers are small town guys anyway, so they're not completely gungho about it.
I got stopped by a highway patrol officer a couple of years ago. I had three rifles in the back-seat (I was on my way hunting). When he came to the window, I just let him know that I was on my way hunting and had firearms in the vehicle. He asked me to step out of the vehicle and continued with what he was doing. He wrote me a warning during and while we had a .15 minue discussion about hunting and the luck we'd had during the season. He sent me on my way with a warning and that was that.
I actually saw a COPS episode where this guy went up to someone's pick-up and reached through the window with a knife to try and cut the driver. The Driver managed to get to his pistol and he shot the guy with the knife. Come to find out, the guy with the knife was trying to car-jack him and had done so earlier that day to someone else. The shooter had a concealed handgun permit, and the police let him go with no questions asked about his firearm. He showed them is permit and told them what happened, and they let him go. Some gun laws and regulations do border the infrignement category, however, I think many of them are actually necessary.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wondered about that, didn't sound like you.

I would like a Mod to look at it. Since I don't believe anybody but a Mod can alter a post under my name, it had to be added by a Mod. But I would like for the error to be corrected.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All their doing IMO is making sure that the gun owning crazies that are out their (AKA Dale Gribble) don't start toting a gun around without the proper licensing. The SC is upholding to right to own guns while insisting that citizens still follow the current gun-laws in place.

Actually, the court is upholding the individual right without comment on those things -- that is, these things are to be determined when they come up.

Given this decision, its virtually impossible to argue a gun ban of any sort is constitutional. The rest iss till up in the air.

Basically, the SC doesn't want people to start wearing guns on their hips like the Old West just because the SC said it was ok to own guns...

The court is saying no such thing -- never mind that doing so is perfectly legal in most states....

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, the court is upholding the individual right without comment on those things -- that is, these things are to be determined when they come up.

Given this decision, its virtually impossible to argue a gun ban of any sort is constitutional. The rest iss till up in the air.


The court is saying no such thing -- never mind that doing so is perfectly legal in most states....

New Mexico is one of those states. Except for the usual prohibited public areas--schools, bars, court houses, etc.--anybody can carry a visible weapon anywhere, keep one in your desk, in the glove compartment of your car, etc. It is necessary to be trained and licensed to conceal a weapon on your person, and that is a reasonable requirement in the interest of public safety. To the best of my knowledge, no person who has undergone the required training and licensing procedure has ever used a concealed weapon to carry out any crime.

Again, we were within one vote on the Supreme Court of losing the right to bear arms or even own a firearm altogether. To me that is a scary thing.

 

[Reality]

To the best of my knowledge, no person who has undergone the required training and licensing procedure has ever used a concealed weapon to carry out any crime.

Sueng-Hui Cho legally purchased the weapon he killed 24 people with.

 

[BrianH]

Sueng-Hui Cho legally purchased the weapon he killed 24 people with.

Cho was not a licensed firearm carrier. You don't have to be licensed to buy a firearm. I'm not sure about other states, but Texas requires you to have a concealed carry permit if you wish to carry on your person.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sueng-Hui Cho legally purchased the weapon he killed 24 people with.

But he was not a CCW holder -- that is, he had not undergone the required training and licensing procedure -- thus rendering your response moot.

 

[BrianH]

Actually, the court is upholding the individual right without comment on those things -- that is, these things are to be determined when they come up.

Given this decision, its virtually impossible to argue a gun ban of any sort is constitutional. The rest iss till up in the air.


The court is saying no such thing -- never mind that doing so is perfectly legal in most states....

Ok, fair enough. The court did not specifically state what I stated. However, the premise of the decision inoves the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court says you can't be denied the right to own a firearm, however, they are still leaving current gun-laws intact...such as the D.C. requirement to have your gun registered. Trust me, I agree with you that even being required to register a firearm is an infringement, but unfortunately, the Supreme Court still deems it necessary to uphold current gun laws with the exception of gun bans....that is until they are addressed in the future.

"The full implications of the decision, however, are not sorted out. Still to be seen, for example, is the extent to which the right to have a gun for protection in the home may extend outside the home.

Scalia said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." The court also struck down D.C. requirements that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. The district allows shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

But he said nothing in the ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

High court affirms gun rights in historic decision - Yahoo! News

 

[jillian]

Okay, I'm lodging an official protest here.

This part of the above post quoted

are not my words and I didn't quote or post them but they appear to be attributed to me.

How did this happen and how do I prevent it from happening again?

My fault... I hit edit instead of quote.

Sorry and major apologies.

 

[Annie]

My fault... I hit edit instead of quote.

Sorry and major apologies.

I can understand how that would happen, easy enough to do. It might be a good idea to go to the post and clear up what was Fox and what was you?

 

[William Joyce]

Why should the court reflect the American people? If it did, Plessy v Ferguson would still be law.

And I'd argue strenuously with your 7 to 2 characterization and I'd suggest, strongly, that you'd find dramatic disparities between rural and urban populations.

Gun rights are what we call an implicit white issue -- that is, they are a way for whites to assert themselves without explicitly stating that they are doing so, as that is forbidden by the system. As I see it, implicit issues like this get very hot because the explicit issue is so buried. And this one is so pure, so personal... a white person finds himself beleagured on all sides by the encroachments of immigration, affirmative action, secularism, global economics, academics, finance. As a last line of defense, he imagines being able to defend himself and his family with a firearm, against not just a 'criminal' but...

A black home invader from an urban area following some kind of melt-down

A government jackboot come to take his children away for his 'racist' views

A Hispanic walking through the yard after getting here from Mexico

Etc.

He can't fight PC. He can't stop immigration. He cannot stop the neocon wars. He can't stop schools from banning religion. He can't stop the media from mocking him.

But he could stop THOSE people, with a gun, if needed.

That's why he's hot to keep his gun.

That's what's going on.

Yet the urban white might feel a little differently. He might think gun bans are good because he knows who commits crimes with guns: blacks.

The whole issue is very racial. If you look at racially homogenous places like Switzerland and Japan, which have OPPOSITE policies, neither are a big deal.

 

[Foxfyre]

My fault... I hit edit instead of quote.

Sorry and major apologies.

Okay. 20 lashes with my mouse cord.....but not too hard. I appreciate your honesty in fessing up.