• 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.

Supreme Court Decision Extends Right to Keep and Bear Arms to all 50 States

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Would have been nice if they said "What part of 'shall not be infringed' in 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" and ended this thing once and for all.

ANY law which prevents "the people" from "keeping" or "bearing" is an infringement, unless it's something along the lines of "you must maintain a weapon for self defense"

And then Kennedy wouldn't have gone along, and we wouldn't have anything.

But that's ok. After all, everybody knows that a "pure" defeat is better than a partial victory.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
And then Kennedy wouldn't have gone along, and we wouldn't have anything.

But that's ok. After all, everybody knows that a "pure" defeat is better than a partial victory.

True.

We didn't get into this situation in one fell swoop. Our rights have been nibbled at for years. We won't get them back in one fell swoop. We will have to claw and scratch for each partial victory.

McDonald ain't perfect. But, it is good.
 

merle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
109
Location
Tahoe, Nevada, USA
And then Kennedy wouldn't have gone along, and we wouldn't have anything.

But that's ok. After all, everybody knows that a "pure" defeat is better than a partial victory.

Victory through appeasement?

This is why the current situation is so bad, a hand out every now and then feels like victory but it merely delays correction of the current sorry condition. At some point everyone who used to remember "how things were" pass on and the current status becomes the norm. We then get into situations where anyone carrying a gun is viewed suspicously.

"keep and bear...shall not be infringed"

No qualifiers on felons or mentally ill, sensitive places or types of weaponry in there. In fact, those qualifications fly in the face of "infringed". A felon who has served their sentence (done the time, paid their due) has as much need (if not more) for self defense as your average citizen. A sensitive place (like a school like columbine or a military base) is not 100% safe. An 16" shotgun is no more or less deadly than an 18" one. Yet these are the "reasonable" restrictions the SCOTUS has decided on.

It's 2010 and we have a 5-4 along idealogical lines. That's too close given the history and the desire of the framers.
 

marine77

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
167
Location
, ,
BWAHAhahahaahahahah.....did you guys see this??


bradyHateGroup.jpg

Yeah, it's already taken off the site. Wonder if it will get there again?
 

usaf0906

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
301
Location
, ,
While this is a small step in the grand scheme of things, I see this as a good step forward.

granted we all would have liked then to go a little further and address "bear" and possibly open carry. As others have said, SCOTUS only addresses the question presented to them (which we like when the ruling doesnt go our way).

This ruling, as I see it, opens the door for challenges in states like California, Hawaii, New Jersey and Maryland. This ruling might also help other states trying to get open carry, such as Texas.

mark another win for freedom.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
I don't see how this ruling would effect Texas law. I think we actually have some pretty good laws, though not perfect. I just don't agree with them.
 

balackolama

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
178
Location
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Pahrump Nevada
Hate Group
Isn't this technically a hate group since it protests against an established civil right? (see: McDonald v. Chicago) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.47.122 (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but someone thinks otherwise. Hello Link (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
brady campaign CLEARLY meet the definition of a hate group- they actively espouse stripping rights constitutionally guaranteed through deceitful tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.22.173 (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Any group that stands in opposition to an established constitutionally protected right is seditious and a hate group. SpringerRider —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpringerRider (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A hate group – likely. Seditious? Most definitely not. Sedition is speech, organization, or conduct contributing to or advocating insurrection or rebellion, and they're not that. mcornelius (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 

SemperFiTexan

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
68
Location
, ,
I devoutly hope that this ruling will strengthen the backbone of some of the politicians here in Texas. We need the complete freedom to CC or OC that is our right as Americans.

While the decision was not all that I had hoped for, it is still a victory. Besides, I never expect much from lawyers or judges except for them to create a bigger mess in which they can introduce more confusion.
 

MarlboroLts5150

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
407
Location
San Antonio
This ruling, as I see it, opens the door for challenges in states like California, Hawaii, New Jersey and Maryland. This ruling might also help other states trying to get open carry, such as Texas.

mark another win for freedom.

The Ninth Circuit "re-hearing" of Nordyke vs King has been on hold awaiting THIS verdict. Several other court cases have also been on hold awaiting McDonald.

It's going to be interesting of the next couple of months or so. Stay tuned guys and girls. :)
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
A right for some?

So will this be the first right that is only for some?
Doesn't Brown v Education mean they can't have separate but equal gun laws?
So how do non citizens get their rights?
Does this mean we can finally buy a gun that is for sale regardless of where we
or the gun is at? How do you defend your home if the gun is being sold in HI.

Since they like to clarify it is for home protection. I guess a homeless person on the streets
of the DC has more rights as he can carry in the capitol, and everyone else has to leave it in their house.

So when does the impeachment / perjury trial start for sotomayor when she lied to the senate in her
confirmation testimony? I for one would love to hear how the constitution was changed to remove
individual rights since her testimony so she was telling the truth then.
Or does this fall under the Kerry exception where lieing for the liberal agenda is acceptable?
 

BillMCyrus

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
118
Location
Lancaster County, PA
It has all of the good stuff to void Bach v. Pataki, Burton v. Sills, and Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Board. That will open up carry rights to a large percentage of the US population that previously had no chance of ever doing so.
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
If the RKBA is now a fundamental right.... how will this affect carry across State lines? Will we have to sue in every State we enter into when being harassed for not having a permit to carry? What does this mean for carry permits? Isn't it NOW unconstitutional to require a "PERMIT" to exercise a fundamental civil right? I mean, we don't have to have a permit to be a minority.... but if we are gun owners.... we DO have to have a permit... will this give us teeth to fight these prejudice laws against us?
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It has all of the good stuff to void Bach v. Pataki, Burton v. Sills, and Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Board. That will open up carry rights to a large percentage of the US population that previously had no chance of ever doing so.

The Court did not address permits, carry, or what "reasonable regulation" is. Those issues remain to be settled. No laws on the books have been changed. They are just now subject to review with the 2A in mind.
 

BillMCyrus

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
118
Location
Lancaster County, PA
The Court did not address permits, carry, or what "reasonable regulation" is. Those issues remain to be settled. No laws on the books have been changed. They are just now subject to review with the 2A in mind.

All those states with May (when hell freezes over) Issue have their laws based on cases which assume no 2nd Amendment individual right AND no incorporation. Those cases in particular. Now that the Heller and McDonald rulings have demolished the basis which those opinions were built around, those cases are void and thus are their laws. They violate the 2nd and 14th Amendments clear as day and now can be put down like a rabid dog.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
All those states with May (when hell freezes over) Issue have their laws based on cases which assume no 2nd Amendment individual right AND no incorporation. Those cases in particular. Now that the Heller and McDonald rulings have demolished the basis which those opinions were built around, those cases are void and thus are their laws. They violate the 2nd and 14th Amendments clear as day and now can be put down like a rabid dog.

I think you are reading way to much into the ruling. The SCOTUS specifically avoided ruling on the laws themselves. The case was remanded to the lower court to address the constitutionality of each individual restriction.

All the SC did was make State and local laws subject to the scrutiny of federal courts using the lens of the 2A.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
-snip-

All the SC did was make State and local laws subject to the scrutiny of federal courts using the lens of the 2A.
That is true... but, even though the Supreme Court's decision didn't clean up the mess of gun control laws across the board....... it did open the door for all of those laws to be challenged and made to fit the now new Supreme Court's decision.

And that is a very good thing even though it will take decades of court battles to work through all those gun control laws already on the books on the State and local levels... and to fight any new laws that restrict (Chicago's planned new ordinances?) gun ownership/carrying.

There will be a great deal of time, and money, spent in the next 20 to 30 years...............
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
That is true... but, even though the Supreme Court's decision didn't clean up the mess of gun control laws across the board....... it did open the door for all of those laws to be challenged and made to fit the now new Supreme Court's decision.

And that is a very good thing even though it will take decades of court battles to work through all those gun control laws already on the books on the State and local levels... and to fight any new laws that restrict (Chicago's planned new ordinances?) gun ownership/carrying.

There will be a great deal of time, and money, spent in the next 20 to 30 years...............

I think that's what the dissenting opinion was trying to say: The courts are going to be clogged with cases challenging gun laws.

GOOD!

There is a lot of bad gun law on the books. It took a long time to build up and will take a long time to dismantle. Eventually, those in power will learn what will and will not be acceptable. Those who refuse to learn will be spending a lot of time and effort fighting in court.

Reasonable politicians will immediately back down on laws that effectively ban the possession and carry of firearms.
 
Top