Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Hot poll on Heller Case in USA Today!

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Voted; still at 98% who voted yes

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    just a guy, with a Glock wrote:
    98% say yes ! Yippee :celebrate

    I just hope the Supreme court agrees.

    ¬*Imagine there is no gun bans, no foolish liberal ideology to die for (or get killed because of) and no Million MOM MARCHES too, imagine all the people¬*carrying guns every where they go..... ooohwho

    Imagine all the people that will not be killed by thugs.

    Imagine the DC, New York, Wisconsin and Illinois crime rates dropping overnight !

    Imagine the an even higher pitched whine in Sarah Brady's voice.¬*
    Imagine all that stuff all you want, because it won't happen (except Sarah Brady's whine).

    The Supreme Court is not on the side of individual rights.

    Even if they uphold an individual right to bear arms, it will be so narrowly tailored that it will only affect Washington DC and will only prohibit an outright ban.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Conyers, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?
    Actually, no it does not. The right is given by the Creator, but all the Second Amendment does is give you peace of mind by restricting the government from trying to take it away.




  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726

    Post imported post

    The Supreme court can keep the matter simple.

    Question "Can the DC government make it illegal for a resident of DC to have a loaded firerm in their home?"

    The short answer is NO, period.

    Case closed.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    color of law wrote:
    The Supreme court can keep the matter simple.

    Question "Can the DC government make it illegal for a resident of DC to have a loaded firerm in their home?"

    The short answer in NO, period.

    Case closed.
    Have you ever read a Supreme Court case? It's NEVER that simple.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    As of 1AM MT, 16720 votes had been cast and we are winning it by 98% still. niiice....:celebrate

  8. #8
    Regular Member zoom6zoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dale City, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,694

    Post imported post

    Apparently closed now. 17609 votes, 98% YES, 1% NO, 0% Undecided. And I guess 1% MIA.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    Yes, Supreme Court Rulings affect every state. Whether this includes D.C. is in question since it is a federal enclave. I believe they narrowed the scope of the ruling to be " Does the Second Amendment bar an individual not affiliated with the official state militia from keeping a functional firearm in their home" or some such.

    The only problem with this that I have is the term "official state militia".

    Washington D.C. doesn't have a state militia. It's not a state.

    I have a feeling that they will rule in the gun owner's favor. To do otherwise would open a serious can of worms. It would mean you have no rights unless you are part of an "official militia". This would cause pandemonium.

    Although, this could potentially open a can of worms the other way because it removes the obscurity of individual vs. collective that the term "militia" implies.

    If it does this, it recognizes that an individual's right CANNOT BE INFRINGED!

    Then how can they regulate whether states such as Illinois permit open carry if an individual's right can't be infringed upon?

    I can't wait to see the outcome. Now this is exciting!

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Superlite27 wrote:
    Yes, Supreme Court Rulings affect every state. Whether this includes D.C. is in question since it is a federal enclave. I believe they narrowed the scope of the ruling to be " Does the Second Amendment bar an individual not affiliated with the official state militia from keeping a functional firearm in their home" or some such.

    The only problem with this that I have is the term "official state militia".

    Washington D.C. doesn't have a state militia. It's not a state.

    I have a feeling that they will rule in the gun owner's favor. To do otherwise would open a serious can of worms. It would mean you have no rights unless you are part of an "official militia". This would cause pandemonium.

    Although, this could potentially open a can of worms the other way because it removes the obscurity of individual vs. collective that the term "militia" implies.

    If it does this, it recognizes that an individual's right CANNOT BE INFRINGED!

    Then how can they regulate whether states such as Illinois permit open carry if an individual's right can't be infringed upon?

    I can't wait to see the outcome. Now this is exciting!
    I do not believe this case will affect state regulation of firearms - the "incorporation" issue cannot be reached on the facts here.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    I do not believe this case will affect state regulation of firearms - the "incorporation" issue cannot be reached on the facts here.
    I agree.

    But this would be an excellent follow-on case:

    http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=691963

    Here a resident of a state has obtained a ruling that a ban on carrying firearms is unconstitutional (and he isn't otherwise a criminal).

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Not closed yet (as of 1230 EST 1 Dec)

    18,298 votes cast, 98% say individual right.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    just a guy, with a Glock wrote:
    Well Said, Supreme court rulings effect every State. The Constitution can't be narrowed to DC. If the DC ban is ruled unconstitutional all bans are. It will be the beginning of the end for gun control. I believe the current court will resolve the issue once and for all in the favor of all citizens.
    That's actually not true. First, this ruling will probably not effect states, only the Federal Government...for now. When written, the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government (with a few exceptions). After the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights has been selectively "incorporated" (i.e., applied to the states). The 2nd Amednment has not yet been incorporated. That will probably have to be decided in a future case. So the Heller case probably won't apply to the states...yet.

    Also, this case will probably be very narrow and probably won't knock down too many laws, unfortunately. It will be a building block for other cases, not an end-all case. Even if we lose (and we won't), it won't change that much since all that will do is leave the bad laws in place and leave the good laws in place. If we win, DC will probably become a place where you can own handguns, but have to pay a $500 registration fee and special background check 4 times a year to own one (or something stupid like it).

  14. #14
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    Good point. SCOTUS might allow people to own hadguns in D.C., but D.C. can put in place "reasonable gun control" such as registration fees, handling and storage requirements, and other "reasonable" regulation to make owning a handgun a nightmare.

    But, hey, we allow you to own one as the law requires. You just have to pay us ten thousand dollars, not keep the firearm and ammunition in the same building, and have the barrel filled in with lead. But you can own it now.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Superlite27 wrote:
    But, hey, we allow you to own one as the law requires. You just have to pay us ten thousand dollars, not keep the firearm and ammunition in the same building, and have the barrel filled in with lead. But you can own it now.
    That's exactly what DC does right now with rifles and shotguns (can have them, but they must be dissasembled. Kinda like saying you can own books as long as they're glued shut). I have a feeling the SCOTUS may knock that down too as a "de facto ban."

    The fact is though, we've been operated under the assumption that there IS NO 2nd Amendment right for 100 years. And we've still donea pretty good job protecting our rigths at the ballot box. If we lose, we still have the ballot box, but if we WIN, then we have the ballot box ANNNND the courthouse as a means to protect our rights. This ruling will help set the groundwork, but the supreme court is NEVER cut and dry.

    If we win, we will probably be able to knock down gun bans in Chicago too, once/if the ruling has been incporporated to be applied to the states. Then, we can work on the right to BEAR arms, not just keep them. Hopefully, we can then get Illinois and California to get rid of their restrictions on carrying.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    Polls are NOT closed!!!!!! Keep voting! 19289 so far and 98% still rules!:celebrate

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    sailer wrote:
    Here a resident of a state has obtained a ruling that a ban on carrying firearms is unconstitutional (and he isn't otherwise a criminal).
    But as a matter of Wisconsin's Constitution.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Superlite27 wrote:
    Yes, Supreme Court Rulings affect every state. Whether this includes D.C. is in question since it is a federal enclave. I believe they narrowed the scope of the ruling to be " Does the Second Amendment bar an individual not affiliated with the official state militia from keeping a functional firearm in their home" or some such.

    The only problem with this that I have is the term "official state militia".

    Washington D.C. doesn't have a state militia. It's not a state.

    I have a feeling that they will rule in the gun owner's favor. To do otherwise would open a serious can of worms. It would mean you have no rights unless you are part of an "official militia". This would cause pandemonium.

    Although, this could potentially open a can of worms the other way because it removes the obscurity of individual vs. collective that the term "militia" implies.

    If it does this, it recognizes that an individual's right CANNOT BE INFRINGED!

    Then how can they regulate whether states such as Illinois permit open carry if an individual's right can't be infringed upon?

    I can't wait to see the outcome. Now this is exciting!
    I do not believe this case will affect state regulation of firearms - the "incorporation" issue cannot be reached on the facts here.
    More directly, in the Supreme Court held in Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894)that the Second Amendment was one of the few provisions of the Bill of Rights that are not applied to the states via the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment.

    However, a win in Heller will still be great for rolling back DC's laws as well as setting limits for federal gun laws. Additionally, it will aid efforts to interpret state constitutional provisions protecting the right to keep and bear arms more favorably in those states where the courts have either been silent or have tried to exclude handguns from the scope of constitutional protection. See, e.g., State v. Workman, 14 S.E. 9, 10-11 (W.Va. 1891), overruled, State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139, 142-43 (W.Va. 1988) (holding that the Second Amendment did not protect pistols and revolvers under a pre-Miller analysis that assumed the Second Amendment applied to the states).
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726

    Post imported post

    color of law wrote:
    The Supreme court can keep the matter simple.

    Question "Can the DC government make it illegal for a resident of DC to have a loaded firerm in their home?"

    The short answer is NO, period.

    Case closed.
    I stand on my statement. And I think others agree with my position. I have read 100s of of SC cases and 100s of appeal court cases. I said "The short answer is NO..."

    Why write a novel when you can write a simple note.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •