• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Hot poll on Heller Case in USA Today!

sailer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
62
Location
, ,
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.
 

shamalama

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
46
Location
Conyers, Georgia, USA
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.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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.
 

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
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? :lol: It's NEVER that simple.
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
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!
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

sailer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
62
Location
, ,
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).
 

sailer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
62
Location
, ,
imported post

Not closed yet (as of 1230 EST 1 Dec)

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

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
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).
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
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.
 

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
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.
 

JimMullinsWVCDL

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
676
Location
Lebanon, VA
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).
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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.
 
Top