D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11631
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:45 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

Washington DC has long had a ban on handguns within the city. Last year, a group of citizens challenged the ban on Second Amendment grounds and won 2-1 at the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which basically said that gun ownership is a Constitutional right under the Second Amendment. The dissent basically said that gun ownership for personal use is not a constitutional right, but rather that the *federal* government cannot ban guns. DC is not exactly the federal government in the eyes of the law, so its council felt that it could ban guns.

Now, the Supreme Court is going to take up the case, which people think will decide once and for all whether or not local and state governments can ban guns.

Personally, I think DC is right, if for no other reason than DC doesn't need any handguns for sure.
 
b752fanatic
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:44 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:47 pm

With the actual composition of the supreme court, one doesn't have to guess what would they decide. Its a conservative majority led court.
"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:56 pm



Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
Personally, I think DC is right, if for no other reason than DC doesn't need any handguns for sure

So you don't care that the Constitution is being crapped all over as long as you agree with using it for toilet paper?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Queso
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:56 pm



Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 1):
Its a conservative majority led court.

Which means at least there will be a chance of having a ruling based on common sense.

If this case ends up contrary to the 2nd Amendment, it will show that there is no longer any respect for the Constitution and we can just flush this form of government down the toilet because other elements of the Constitution will closely follow.
 
b752fanatic
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:44 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:02 pm

Well if you base yourself on what it states in the bottom link, common sense would drive me to decide differently than most conservatives.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/guns_in_america/html/framesource.html
"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11631
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:06 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 2):
So you don't care that the Constitution is being crapped all over as long as you agree with using it for toilet paper?

No, I think the Constitution is a limit on what the federal government can do except where it says otherwise, and also says that guns are for militia and that's why the federal government cannot abridge the right (of the state) to have militia. That doesn't mean that a state cannot decide whether or not to have militia, or even guns.

Quoting Queso (Reply 3):
If this case ends up contrary to the 2nd Amendment

Well, the big question isn't "will this be aligned with or contrary to the 2nd Amendment" but rather, "who is limited by the Second Amendment."

To be quite honest, a conservative, originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment makes it more likely they'll say it was not meant to prevent localities from banning guns.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:07 pm

Huhh... the only thing I found informative in that link was this...

Quote:
"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

"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:09 pm



Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 4):
Well if you base yourself on what it states in the bottom link, common sense would drive me to decide differently than most conservatives.

If you base every opinion you have on liberal journalists opinions and one sided articles published without evenhandedness then you will always feel that way.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11631
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:09 pm

The question is, what does the first half of that sentence mean, MDorBust. You can't forget that half.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:13 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 8):
You can't forget that half.

Actually, yes you can. The 2nd quite clearly reads that private ownership of guns is the right of the people, using them to form a militia is just a bonus of that.

Have fun reading what the experts say about it:

http://www.largo.org/literary.html
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11631
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:25 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 9):
Quoting D L X (Reply 8):
You can't forget that half.

Actually, yes you can.

Wow! That's a great answer. I should have thought of that.  Wink
Seriously, what makes you so confident? When you say something, you expect people to comprehend the whole thing, right? Not just the last half, right?
Every word means something. The Supreme Court is about to determine what those words mean.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 9):
Have fun reading what the experts say about it:

http://www.largo.org/literary.html

Come on MD, you can do better. LARGO = Lawful and Responsible Gun Owners. You call that an unbiased source?

They certainly aren't "experts."
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:25 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 6):
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

It means that the founders intended for us not to have the professional military that we have today, because they knew that such a military irresistibly tempts politicians to use it. They intended for us to have citizen militias to honestly defend the country, and well-trained, capable ones at that. That's what "well regulated" means.

DC has long been the only place where guns were banned, period. And where can you find the worst gun crime rates in the nation? Gee, it wouldn't be DC, would it?
 
b752fanatic
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:44 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:27 pm



Quoting DL021 (Reply 7):


If you base every opinion you have on liberal journalists opinions and one sided articles published without evenhandedness then you will always feel that way.

Not at all, I didn't need to read any sort of opinions, they stated the facts (statistics and real numbers) on the effect of having a gun loving nation as ours. That's all. My opinion? I really would have hoped people use weapons differently, but it seems the ignorance in this nation have led to thousands of gun related deaths and it will continue to rise.

More than 30 thousand people died in 2002 because of gun inflicted wounds, that is around 8 September 11's each year. My common sense says, "We are killing ourselves".

It is also horrible how children are killing themselves in this country all because of the easy access of guns and the level of education that they have that doesn't permit them to understand the responsibility. Look at Mr. Joe Horn, listening to the 911 recording one only knows how stupid he sounds and how stupid he acted. But it is a right under the constitution no?

I myself do not have a gun, my father back home does, but I don't seem to feel safer with one, he does, I don't know how one should feel safer with a weapon. But everyone has his or her point of view which we must respect.
"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:01 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 5):
That doesn't mean that a state cannot decide whether or not to have militia, or even guns.

If the District of Columbia were a state, that might have some validity. How many Congressmen or Senators does the District have? You know, like all the real States do. Which Star on the flag represents the District?

Quoting D L X (Reply 8):
The question is, what does the first half of that sentence mean, MDorBust. You can't forget that half.

It means that back in 1787 almost every able body white man was a member of the militia and could be called to order if a threat appeared.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 11):
It means that the founders intended for us not to have the professional military that we have today, because they knew that such a military irresistibly tempts politicians to use it.

Qualify that only to say they knew that such a military irresistibly tempts politicians, and monarchs, to use it against their own people/subjects.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 12):
Look at Mr. Joe Horn, listening to the 911 recording one only knows how stupid he sounds and how stupid he acted.

You mean the guy you finally agreed was withing his rights once the law was explained to you?

Reply To: Man Kills Suspected Intruders In "Vigilante" Style

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 35):
My judgement based on what I heard on the call made to 911 and on the transcripts is that the man obviously wanted to take those guys out. To me thats murder. Its my own personal opinion, which I am entitled to have. But yes it seems that he has the laws on his favor.

This case will hinge on what Justice Stevens decides.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6582
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:05 pm

Let's look at the word "militia".

Definition:

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference...;_ylt=AveXLWzROt1KoVw5nS1ec.CsgMMF

Look at #3.

Now "regulated"

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/regulate

Too me, a simple person, if a state applies definition 1 of regulate to definition 3 of militia, the provision, if it is a provision, in the 2nd amendment ("A well regulated militia"), is satisfied. But then again, I'm a simple person.

All gun bans do is prevent law abiding citizens form owning firearms. That's it, nothing more. DC has some of the worst gun violence in the US, yet guns have been banned for decades. Isn't that a hint to folks?

Now understand, it is only a bonus of the 2nd amendment that we are able to use these weapons to defend ourselves from the scum of the earth. The true intent of the 2nd amendment was for the states (read that as the people) to be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical federal government. Of course, this isn't such a big issue anymore, unless you're a far leftist, but get enough to run some states and maybe the leftists can try to topple the government (insert smiley here).
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11631
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:08 pm

Please do quote the whole thing, and let everyone see that it is a biased source. So, you can quote away all you want. Until you find an unbiased source, you've proven bupkis. Being an expert on english doesn't make you a lawyer, even though lawyers write in english. Being an expert on english doesn't make you a cop, even though cops speak english.

And speaking of pretending, don't pretend for a second that you'd let some journalist somewhere tell you what your cop protocol actually means, using his "expertise" in english language.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:11 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
Please do quote the whole thing, and let everyone see that it is a biased source.

Uh... I did.

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
Being an expert on english doesn't make you a lawyer...

No, but it does make you an expert on semantics... which is what you are trying to argue.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:11 pm



Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 1):
With the actual composition of the supreme court, one doesn't have to guess what would they decide.

Actually, there is a question even with this court

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 2):

So you don't care that the Constitution is being crapped all over as long as you agree with using it for toilet paper?

You generally air on the more reasonable side of things, but what are your opinions on the Patriot Act, wire tapping, torture, birthright citizenship and faith-based initiatives?

Quoting D L X (Reply 5):

To be quite honest, a conservative, originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment makes it more likely they'll say it was not meant to prevent localities from banning guns.

That has been the general tact held to this point. Even after the 14th Amendment, the general doctrine has been that the Second Amendment is on of the Bill of Rights that does not apply to the States.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 9):
The 2nd quite clearly reads that private ownership of guns is the right of the people, using them to form a militia is just a bonus of that.

Not the way it is written. The way that line is written, it gives the reason for gun ownership to be the militia.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 11):

It means that the founders intended for us not to have the professional military that we have today,

Well, that isn't particularly true.

Article 1 states this:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11631
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:14 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 16):
If the District of Columbia were a state, that might have some validity.

I think that's a fair point. The law has been very wishy-washy on that throughout our history. For example, the Supreme Court desegregated the schools using the 14th Amendment (which says quite clearly that STATES cannot discriminate, and the feds can knock them around if they do), the Supreme Court the next day said basically, "well, DC is like a state, so DC can't discriminate either." But in other instances the Supreme Court has said "yeah, we'd give you that right.... if you were a state. You're not, so sorry kids."

An interesting point though is that Hawaii, New York, Maryland, and Illinois have joined forces with DC to make sure that they can continue to ban or nearly ban guns. Those without question, are states.
 
b752fanatic
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:44 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:16 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 16):
You mean the guy you finally agreed was withing his rights once the law was explained to you?

That he was within his rights is another thing, but that I think he is stupid and what he did was stupid is another.
"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:17 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
You generally air on the more reasonable side of things, but what are your opinions on the Patriot Act, wire tapping, torture, birthright citizenship and faith-based initiatives?


Well now, let's make this about me. Okay

1) Which provisions, that's a big law
2) Get warrents
3) No
4) Yes
5) Only if you don't have faith specific requirements for funding. Give the satanists the same funding as christians.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
Not the way it is written. The way that line is written, it gives the reason for gun ownership to be the militia.

No. That would be the only time in history a adjective has been the subject of a sentence. Is the car red or is it a car?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11631
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:18 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 16):
Reply To: Man Kills Suspected Intruders In "Vigilante" Style

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 35):
My judgement based on what I heard on the call made to 911 and on the transcripts is that the man obviously wanted to take those guys out. To me thats murder. Its my own personal opinion, which I am entitled to have. But yes it seems that he has the laws on his favor.

This case will hinge on what Justice Stevens decides.

Why don't we keep that thread on that thread, not here.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:24 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):


Well now, let's make this about me. Okay

Actually, I did that more so people here would understand your POV and not think you were the typical nutso righty.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11631
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:38 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):
Well now, let's make this about me. Okay

Are you serious? You're always trying to make things personal, but the instant someone else directs something at you (trying to help you at that!) you're going to whine about it?!
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:52 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
Are you serious? You're always trying to make things personal, but the instant someone else directs something at you (trying to help you at that!) you're going to whine about it?!

That wasn't a whine. Notice the, "okay" on the end? OK (or Okay or even O.K.) is generally a term of acceptance. Notice the answers afterward?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
Even if it does, as we all assume, includes firearms, it doesn't say anything about limiting the type of firearm.

What would you expect the militia to turn out with? Miller said that should be arms in common use at the time. Meaning, normal military weapons.. AK-47s if you would.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
fumanchewd
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:43 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:00 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
Yes it does. Militia is given as the reason. In any case, the writing is very vague anyway.

No it doesn't. Militia is a seperate entity in that sentence, seperated by the comma. Nowhere does the right to bear arms become inclusive to the militia. It really is a matter of linguistics and English. I've spent quite a few hours dissecting sentences into trees for english and linguistics classes and I am 100% sure that as a matter of language, not politics or opinion, the right is not under the militia, but as stated "the right of the people". Otherwise it would have stated "right of the militia" or "right of the people in the militia". It does not.
In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey...
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11631
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:12 pm



Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 25):
No it doesn't. Militia is a seperate entity in that sentence, seperated by the comma.

Yes it does. You have to read the whole sentence as a single entity. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is not a complete sentence or phrase that stands on its own, so you can't simply ignore it. It is an antecedent clause.

"If I get impaled by a unicorn on Ash Wednesday, you can have my estate" does not mean the same as "You can have my estate." That first half means something.

But again, as both N1120A and I have stated, this case is going to come down on the "by whom", as in "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed [by whom]." The Bill of Rights was designed to limit federal power, not state or local power, meaning that by whom is the federal government, not the states.



Here's the funny thing I don't get from the conservatives here. Isn't that a conservative idea that each state would have the right to decide its laws? States' Rights is still a major part of the conservative platform, right?
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:14 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
Isn't that a conservative idea that each state would have the right to decide its laws? States' Rights is still a major part of the conservative platform, right?

Which is why I don't understand why the SC is reviewing the case.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:16 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is not a complete sentence or phrase that stands on its own, so you can't simply ignore it.

Because it can not stand on it's own is exactly why it is not the focus of the Amendment and can be ignored. What could possibly make you believe that the participle is the focus of the Amendment? That completely defies all rules of the English language.

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
"If I get impaled by a unicorn on Ash Wednesday, you can have my estate" does not mean the same as "You can have my estate." That first half means something.

This is an If/Then conditional clause. It is not the same as the 2nd Ammendment.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11631
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:18 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 27):
Which is why I don't understand why the SC is reviewing the case.

I think I see three reasons:
1) It's hard to refuse a case when a major American city asks you to review it. There's clearly merit, and it would affect probably around 50 million people (considering NY, MD, HI, and IL are in on the gig too).

2) The Supreme Court is not a conservative body, and they'd lose all credibility if they only took cases that they felt help conservatives

3) It takes 4 justices to grant cert, so if there are 4 that think they can and should overturn a lower court opinion (not saying that's what happened here), then that's enough to hear the case.
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11631
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:20 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 28):
What could possibly make you believe that the participle is the focus of the Amendment?

I never said it was the focus. I said it was an important part of the amendment because you keep choosing to ignore it.

Anyway, do you have an opinion on this:

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
this case is going to come down on the "by whom", as in "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed [by whom]." The Bill of Rights was designed to limit federal power, not state or local power, meaning that by whom is the federal government, not the states.

 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:20 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 29):
1) It's hard to refuse a case when a major American city asks you to review it. There's clearly merit, and it would affect probably around 50 million people (considering NY, MD, HI, and IL are in on the gig too).

If 50 million people thought the 13th amendment was crap, would that mean they have merit and the SC should review it?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:23 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 30):
Anyway, do you have an opinion on this:

Yeah, incorporation.

I'll make you a bet.

If I'm wrong and the SCOTUS declares the 2nd to be a right held by the miltias and not citizens, then I will donate $1000.00 to a charity of your choosing.

If I'm right and the SCOTUS declares the 2nd to be a right of the people (read citizens) and not the miltias then you have to buy a firearm and come to the next BHM meeting where we will show you how to use it.

[Edited 2007-11-20 15:25:58]
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11631
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:35 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 31):
If 50 million people thought the 13th amendment was crap, would that mean they have merit and the SC should review it?

Well, if you could find a controversial case involving the 13th amendment, and litigated it up through the Courts of Appeals or state supreme courts, then possibly. But I doubt you will find that ever. Slavery is an extremely settled issue. Gun control is not.

And reviewing it doesn't mean they would decide it a particular way.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 32):
Yeah, incorporation.

I don't know what you mean by that.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 32):
If I'm wrong and the SCOTUS declares the 2nd to be a right held by the miltias and not citizens, then I will donate $1000.00 to a charity of your choosing.

If I'm right and the SCOTUS declares the 2nd to be a right of the people (read citizens) and not the miltias then you have to buy a firearm and come to the next BHM meeting where we will show you how to use it.

That might be the point of confusion. I don't think those are the two options before the Court. I think it's these two:

A) States can ban guns but Feds cannot ("...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government")

B) Neither the states nor the feds can ban guns ("...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed by government")


And I think the correct (and conservative!) answer is A.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 32):
then you have to buy a firearm and come to the next BHM meeting where we will show you how to use it.

Can I do that anyway? I think if you met me, you might find out I'm not as evil as you think.

[Edited 2007-11-20 15:36:58]
 
fumanchewd
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:43 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:40 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
The Bill of Rights was designed to limit federal power, not state or local power, meaning that by whom is the federal government, not the states.

Wow. It was about limiting power? Here I thought that it was a bill of rights for US citizens living in the United States.

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
Yes it does. You have to read the whole sentence as a single entity.

Ok. This is turning in to a "did not" "did too" thing. If you don't want to understand the linguistics, I'm not going to change your mind.

Now.

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
You have to read the whole sentence as a single entity. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is not a complete sentence or phrase that stands on its own, so you can't simply ignore it. It is an antecedent clause.

Funny that you did not quote the "whole sentence". Take a look at the English Declaration of Rights, which is where the idea came from. It did not even mention militias but it did limit it to Protestants. Do you think the constitution was a limiting document? Why would they state the right to own arms only comes under a militia? Wouldn't that be a limiting "right"? After all, all of the pioneers, hunters, and homeowners that owned guns would not be protected under the constitution if it was written only for militias. These are the same people that were in militia's btw. The right to bear arms was common law reaffirmed by the Constitution extending it beyond the English version to include the right to militias and the people.

Who the hell can define a "well regulated militia" anyway?

The legal experts and historians who were around at the time all reaffirm that it was for all Americans. If you keep up your silly opinion, I might be forced to drag them out.  

You cannot recite another amendment in the Bill of Rights that was limiting rights of citizens. So why would the 2nd?

[Edited 2007-11-20 15:50:08]
In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey...
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:54 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
I don't know what you mean by that.

The 14th Amendment.

I fully expect the court to incorporate the 2nd, re-affirm the 2nd is a right of the citizens, and declare that resonable prohibitions similar to those on the 1st will remain in effect (ie not guns for felons, nutcases, or minors), while declaring that localized outright bans to posession are unconstitutional.

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
Can I do that anyway? I think if you met me, you might find out I'm not as evil as you think.

Anyone who shoots safetly can come to the BHM meets AKAIK
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:58 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 27):

Which is why I don't understand why the SC is reviewing the case.

Because the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the federal constitution, which is the issue here. Essentially the only place the USSC doesn't have review power is where it is deciding whether an issue is compliant with an individual state constitution, though they can and do review the constitutions themselves.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 31):
If 50 million people thought the 13th amendment was crap, would that mean they have merit and the SC should review it?

They can't rule an amendment unconstitutional, because amendments are part of the actual constitution.

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
A) States can ban guns but Feds cannot ("...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government")

Which is the majority view of constitutional scholars.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 34):
Here I thought that it was a bill of rights for US citizens living in the United States.

It is not just for citizens

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 34):


Who the hell can define a "well regulated militia" anyway?

Easy. The National Guard.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Flighty
Posts: 7649
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:01 am

If I were a powerful VIP in a major US city, I would certainly want guns off the streets.

Even a conservative NRA lover would think twice about arming the hoodlums in DC. Why would these judges want to arm the very people who lurk around DC causing trouble, dealing drugs etc, endangering their very own families?
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11631
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:06 am



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 35):
I fully expect the court to incorporate the 2nd

Ahh. Gotcha.

If I'm not mistaken however, the Court has had several opportunities to incorporate the 2nd amendment against the states and has refused each time. Gun ownership is not a "fundamental right" (as in one endowed by our Creator) like the freedom of speech, for example. That is the basic criterion for incorporation.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 34):
Wow. It was about limiting power?

YES. Look at the context: they just rid themselves of a tyrannical king, and didn't want any centralized tyrant to rule the new nation, be it a single person, or a single group of people. The Constitution is all about limits of power on the federal government, and the promotion of power in state government (at least until the Civil War). The best example is the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly states that the federal government has NO powers except those granted by the Constitution, and that some powers are prohibited by states' and peoples' rights.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 34):
Why would they state the right to own arms only comes under a militia?

That's not what I said. I said that I believe the 2A means that the feds cannot abridge this right. But that doesn't mean that someone else can't. (For instance, your mother can absolutely abridge your right to have a gun if you're not of age; I can abridge your right to bring your gun when you come over to my house, etc.)

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 34):
You cannot recite another amendment in the Bill of Rights that was limiting rights of citizens.

So? I'm not saying that the 2A limits the rights of citizens. I'm saying that I think the STATES can limit the rights of citizens. (And if you don't believe me, try going 30 mph over the speed limit.)
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:29 am



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 24):
Meaning, normal military weapons..

The question there being intent. Muskets or AK-47s?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:29 am



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 35):
Anyone who shoots safetly

Safetly? In addition to the gun safety course there will be remedial spelling available as well!  wink   duck 

Quoting N1120A (Reply 36):
They can't rule an amendment unconstitutional, because amendments are part of the actual constitution.

Then why bother to take on the case. They will have to rule on the constitutionality of "the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed".
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
fumanchewd
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:43 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:30 am



Quoting D L X (Reply 38):
YES. Look at the context: they just rid themselves of a tyrannical king, and didn't want any centralized tyrant to rule the new nation, be it a single person, or a single group of people. The Constitution is all about limits of power on the federal government, and the promotion of power in state government (at least until the Civil War).

I am very well of the context. Yet again, it is called the Bill of Rights. I understand that it gives rights by limiting what the government can do. Yet, its purpose is not to limit power, but to grant rights. THAT is the end product. One more time....The Bill of Rights. Not the Bill of Limiting The Government. The Bill of Rights.

Quoting D L X (Reply 38):
The best example is the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly states that the federal government has NO powers except those granted by the Constitution, and that some powers are prohibited by states' and peoples' rights.

And that proves the point that the Bill of RIGHTS was not to limit power but to grant rights. That is why the only amendment in the Bill of RIGHTS mentioning state and federal power is a seperate amendment from the others. The 10th stipulates the power relation, not the 1st through 9th.

Quoting D L X (Reply 38):
So? I'm not saying that the 2A limits the rights of citizens. I'm saying that I think the STATES can limit the rights of citizens. (And if you don't believe me, try going 30 mph over the speed limit.)

Then why have so many local governments passed gun laws that have been shot down by Federal Courts? This one will most likely be too. Remember all the constant fuss about the Establishment clause of the 1st amendment. All those redneck mayors putting the ten commandments in the court building only to have it forcibly removed by the FEDERAL government. In the end, state authority can supercede federal authority in a few rare cases such as DC and Illinois, but when push comes to shove, they will lose.

Remember that the North won the civil war.

Quoting D L X (Reply 38):
That's not what I said. I said that I believe the 2A means that the feds cannot abridge this right. But that doesn't mean that someone else can't. (For instance, your mother can absolutely abridge your right to have a gun if you're not of age; I can abridge your right to bring your gun when you come over to my house, etc.)

So you think that the Constitution was written with the intent of allowing the states to "abridge" the sale of guns to only militia members? That is wrong. They wanted US citizens to have the right to be armed. Its insane to believe that they wanted the trackers, forntiersmen, and homeowners not in militia's to be open to unrestricted state restrictions on arms. There is no doubt that is not what they intended. Sure states have passed laws on age, felons, etc, but that is only because the Feds have allowed them to out of common sense. That is also why they won't allow people to own nuclear subs or bazookas either. If they wanted to, they could force the issue and fight those states restrictions. Will they? No. The SCOTUS can be pretty receptive to popular and pragmatic opinions. My point is that the Constitution was never meant to be open to states "abridging" the rights of non-militia members. It happens, but that is not the point, nor the intention of the Constitution.
In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey...
 
fumanchewd
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:43 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:33 am



Quoting N1120A (Reply 36):
Easy. The National Guard.

That is a branch of the military and not a militia.
In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey...
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:37 am



Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 42):
That is a branch of the military and not a militia

Noooo...the national guard is the State militia. The Governor of a State normally controls it. It can be Federalized if necessary making it part of the U.S. military.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12361
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:40 am

Washington DC is a special situation as it is the capital of the USA. Does it look good that the capital of the the USA has a horrible murder rate, usually with illegally obtained and possessed guns? No! Also, for a variety of security reasons, there needs to be strict regulation of handguns and in fact any guns in DC.
I think in the end, the Supreme Court will say that while DC does have a right to regulate gun and handgun possession in public areas, they cannot ban, per the 2nd Amendment, all legal citizens with reasonably obtainable permits to have one in in their home or place of business or a concealed permit in most public areas of the city.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7864
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:45 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 5):
To be quite honest, a conservative, originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment makes it more likely they'll say it was not meant to prevent localities from banning guns.

As with the other amendments, I thought it was something the federal governemnt was supposed to enforce.

For example, lets say Iowa bans the First Amendment for some crazy reason - the Feds say no-no, bad Iowa, and forces them to stop it. Kinda of like they are also supposed to "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government".

Otherwise, why have a federal government and a "law of the land" (constitution)?

PS: I just read your paragraph above on "incorporation", but still, it's on the constitution and it should apply to all governemnt, local or not, as does the rest of the constitution.

[Edited 2007-11-20 16:49:51]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
fumanchewd
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:43 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:48 am



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 43):
the national guard is the State militia.

No such thing anymore. During the constitutional times, yes. For now, look at the militia act of 1903. States or the federal government can call them into action. Look at Iraq-the state does not call up units. Look at 1963 in Alabama. President Kennedy called in the guard against orders from the governor to stop segregation.

They once were a militia, they are now a reserve under order from the federal government as well.
In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey...
 
fumanchewd
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:43 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:52 am



Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 46):
Look at 1963 in Alabama. President Kennedy called in the guard against orders from the governor to stop segregation.

Wow, look. Another case of the federal government winning over states' rights.
In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey...
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11631
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:55 am



Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 41):
Yet again, it is called the Bill of Rights.

It's also called "The Patriot Act", but that doesn't mean that it's patriotic.

The name "Bill of Rights" appears nowhere in the Constitution. It's just a colloquial term, like calling Karl Malone "The Mailman" or George Bush "Dubya." Don't get hung up on that phrase, as it has no legal operation.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 41):
Then why have so many local governments passed gun laws that have been shot down by Federal Courts?

Can you give an example of local laws being shot down by federal courts? There may be some, but I do not know of them.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 41):
So you think that the Constitution was written with the intent of allowing the states to "abridge" the sale of guns to only militia members?

NO. Again... I think the Constitution was written with the intent of NOT allowing the Feds to abridge the right to bear arms. We can argue about the militia purpose or not, but you're misreading what I've said on the crux issue.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 41):
They wanted US citizens to have the right to be armed.

Now, THAT is revisionist history.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 41):
Its insane to believe that they wanted the trackers, forntiersmen, and homeowners not in militia's to be open to unrestricted state restrictions on arms.

No it's not. Not insane at all. You're revising history there too. The Founders wanted the states to control state issues, such as who should and shouldn't have guns. At the national level, they probably couldn't care less who got guns, as long as the feds couldn't take them away.

And for god's sake, stop saying "militia's."

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 46):
No such thing anymore. During the constitutional times, yes.

That's exactly what we're talking about! (Especially if you think like Scalia and Thomas.)
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:03 am



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40):

Then why bother to take on the case. They will have to rule on the constitutionality of "the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

Why have to rule of "Equal protection of the laws"?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 45):

As with the other amendments, I thought it was something the federal governemnt was supposed to enforce.

The federal government is not there to enforce the state laws. The states are allowed to make their own laws, so long as they are compliant with the national constitution and don't interfere with the enumerated powers of the federal government.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lapa_saab340, PacificBeach88, Vanguard and 35 guests