Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Opelika, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    100

    Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    +1 for gun owners!!

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights...


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100628/...eme_court_guns

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    About time...!
    Tuscaloosa County Sheriff better be paying attntion too!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    41
    Praise the Lord,
    Let Justice prevail !!!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    63
    John Lott article in Fox News on Supreme Court decision:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...gan-sotomayor/

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Opelika, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    100
    Excerpt from the fox website report..."When the “Heller” decision was handed down in 2008 striking down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and gunlock regulations, Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley predicted disaster. He said that overturning the gun ban was "a very frightening decision" and predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts and that people "are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute." Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty similarly warned: "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence."

    This is what we have in offices throughout the country!! People who do not pay attention. Is Daley not watching the news or paying attention to his LEO? My gosh, isn't this already going on(wild west shootings/guns being used in domestic disputes)? The law abiding citizen does not take part in this unless it is to protect his/her butt, this is going on all over the country. These thugs in office need to let us take care of our own security/personal protection from all of these "wild west shootouts" Sheesh, more people take their own lives and others in car wrecks.

    Its time to get these people with blinders on out of office and educate the ones who show a little hope!

  6. #6
    Newbie Deacon Blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    123
    2A Incorporation!!! This is the Holy Grail of gun rights! Even after Heller, I didn't think I'd see it nearly this soon.

    I declare June 28th to be Incorporation Day. How fitting that it comes so close to Independence Day.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL, ,
    Posts
    107
    -1 for State Sovereignty. Please note that BOR was never meant to apply to the State's...only the Federal Government.

  8. #8
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238
    Of course, the 2A applies to the federal government just as the state constitutions apply only to the various states. But, many politicians don't care about either one. Mayor Daly is one such politician who cares about his own power, not that off the people. Chicago runs that state, regardless of what people in the rest of the state want. The states when then they joined the Union vowed to uphold the US Constitution as the law of the land. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have rights as an American, simply as an Alabamian or whatever your state was. The Heller and Chicago decisions are a +1 for the constitutional rights at any level. They are a +1 on the federal level because the Court has twice (Heller and McDonald) affirmed an individual RKBA. They are a +1 for states rights because they ruled states can still make their own laws pertaining to guns, they just can't ban the RKBA. But, mainly they are a +1 on the individual level RKBA as opposed to the gun-grabbers suppostion that it only supports the rights of states to arm militias.


    www.alabamaopencarry.com


  9. #9
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeytown View Post
    -1 for State Sovereignty. Please note that BOR was never meant to apply to the State's...only the Federal Government.
    You are absolutely correct. At the time the states had the sense not to do what they are doing now.

    That is why the 14th amendment was put in place.

    The 2nd was to restrict the feds and the 14th applied those same restrictions to the states and locals.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL, ,
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by kingfish View Post
    You are absolutely correct. At the time the states had the sense not to do what they are doing now.

    That is why the 14th amendment was put in place.

    The 2nd was to restrict the feds and the 14th applied those same restrictions to the states and locals.
    The same 14th amendment that was forced upon the former confederate States and supposedly grants citizenship to anchor babies?

    One of the great things about our Federal system of government is that if you don't like a gun ban in DC or Chicago, then you can "vote with you feet" and move to Alabama, Texas, Arizona, etc. When all mandates come from the Federal Government, where can we go? Leave the Country? Not likely...we become slaves.

    Not trying to be contentious or start a debate. Just Sayin'.

    MT
    Last edited by Monkeytown; 06-28-2010 at 04:37 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeytown View Post
    The same 14th amendment that was forced upon the former confederate States and supposedly grants citizenship to anchor babies? Not trying to be contentious or start a debate. Just Sayin'.

    MT
    The amendment was ratified. Don't like it? Get it repealed.

    The babies can stay but mommy and daddy gotta go.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL, ,
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by kingfish View Post
    The amendment was ratified. Don't like it? Get it repealed.

    The babies can stay but mommy and daddy gotta go.
    Well it looks like we agree on 2 out of 3. Babies gotta go too. ;-)

    MT

  13. #13
    Newbie Deacon Blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by kingfish View Post
    The 2nd was to restrict the feds and the 14th applied those same restrictions to the states and locals.
    When State and Federal government begin to mimic each other in oppressing the People, I think it makes good sense to apply the People's protections against one to the other. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has already been reverse incorporated against the Federal government. I don't believe the founders ever expected the several States to disarm their own populace. Their lack of imagination is no excuse for allowing any municipality to oppress the citizenry this way.

    Remember, this does not give any additional power to the Federal government; it merely extends the power of the Constitution to the States. The Federal government then has the responsibility to enforce it against the States as against itself.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeytown View Post
    Well it looks like we agree on 2 out of 3. Babies gotta go too. ;-)

    MT

    I would love to agree with you but my read of the constitution doesn't. Is there something I am missing or misreading?

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeytown View Post
    Well it looks like we agree on 2 out of 3. Babies gotta go too. ;-)

    MT
    Actually, if we really made mommy and daddy go, babies would probably go too.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeytown View Post
    The same 14th amendment that was forced upon the former confederate States and supposedly grants citizenship to anchor babies?

    One of the great things about our Federal system of government is that if you don't like a gun ban in DC or Chicago, then you can "vote with you feet" and move to Alabama, Texas, Arizona, etc. When all mandates come from the Federal Government, where can we go? Leave the Country? Not likely...we become slaves.

    Not trying to be contentious or start a debate. Just Sayin'.

    MT
    Funny. Alabama is a"may issue" state. In the area of open carry, more than a few sheriffs have used the threat of pulling somenes CCL as a way of preventing them from open carrying "in their county". And while much in Alabama law points to the idea that such an action won't hold water in court, as a result of this incorporation, a sheriff may no longer decide that you are an "improper person". They absolutely must prove it, it's called due process. Today we got yet another tool to use in our efforts against arbitrary government.

    Frankly, I don't think for a moment that incorporation of the BOR agains the states is a sign the federal government is "taking over". If they are taking over, it is because the states, and most particularly the voters are not doing thier job. As well, there is quite a bit of reference in the writings of the founders that lead one to believe that the idea of the BOR being the law of land, and holdable against the sates was the state of things.

    As to "votin with your feet"; many can't. Are you suggesting that Mr McDonald should have taken his family and left his home? What of his family that may not have been able to move? And how many times have you left a city or state because you felt your rights were being abused by the powers that be.

    As you say, not trying to be contentious or argumentative, but the reality is the legal landscape defining the relationship between the states and the federal government was fundamentally altered as a result of the issue of slavery, how it infringed on the privledges and immunities of citizenship, not to mention the aftermath of the war. If you haven't yet, read the opinions, there is a great deal of this very history spoken to there. Oh yes, and don't forget, there were a good number of laws that forbade whites from speaking freely against slavery as well, so it has not just been the issue of right to arms the states violated or continue to attempt to violate.

    Is the federal government too big for it's britches? You betcha! But in any reasonable sense of what government is, one purpose must be to uphold and protect the rights and freedom of the citizens. It is exactly that the incorporation of the 2nd against state and local governments today does. I wonder how many gun owners in other nations wish they had a government so protective of their rights....

  17. #17
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238
    The reason we are in this mess to begin with is that preceding generations didn't fight for their rights. As someone who definitely believes in states rights, as well as constitutional limits placed on any government, I wish things were ideal, but they aren't. We can belly-ache about what is not right and "wish" it was better or we can do something about it. So, ladies and gents, what's it gonna be?


    www.alabamaopencarry.com

  18. #18
    Newbie Deacon Blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by AL Ranger View Post
    The reason we are in this mess to begin with is that preceding generations didn't fight for their rights.
    Absolutely right. That's why we have to have our full rights restored, and more importantly, exercise those rights on a daily basis. I really don't want my grandchildren spitting on my grave for letting their rights dwindle away.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL, ,
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnH View Post
    Funny. Alabama is a"may issue" state. In the area of open carry, more than a few sheriffs have used the threat of pulling somenes CCL as a way of preventing them from open carrying "in their county". And while much in Alabama law points to the idea that such an action won't hold water in court, as a result of this incorporation, a sheriff may no longer decide that you are an "improper person". They absolutely must prove it, it's called due process. Today we got yet another tool to use in our efforts against arbitrary government.

    Frankly, I don't think for a moment that incorporation of the BOR agains the states is a sign the federal government is "taking over". If they are taking over, it is because the states, and most particularly the voters are not doing thier job. As well, there is quite a bit of reference in the writings of the founders that lead one to believe that the idea of the BOR being the law of land, and holdable against the sates was the state of things.

    As to "votin with your feet"; many can't. Are you suggesting that Mr McDonald should have taken his family and left his home? What of his family that may not have been able to move? And how many times have you left a city or state because you felt your rights were being abused by the powers that be.

    As you say, not trying to be contentious or argumentative, but the reality is the legal landscape defining the relationship between the states and the federal government was fundamentally altered as a result of the issue of slavery, how it infringed on the privledges and immunities of citizenship, not to mention the aftermath of the war. If you haven't yet, read the opinions, there is a great deal of this very history spoken to there. Oh yes, and don't forget, there were a good number of laws that forbade whites from speaking freely against slavery as well, so it has not just been the issue of right to arms the states violated or continue to attempt to violate.

    Is the federal government too big for it's britches? You betcha! But in any reasonable sense of what government is, one purpose must be to uphold and protect the rights and freedom of the citizens. It is exactly that the incorporation of the 2nd against state and local governments today does. I wonder how many gun owners in other nations wish they had a government so protective of their rights....
    I would love for you to cite this please. In all the reading I have done the State's retained their sovereignty except for those issues specifically listed as being deferred to the Federal Government (i.e. coining money, providing for common defense, etc.).

    Also, if the idea of incorporation is so obvious, as many here and on other forums have stated, then why did it take 223 years for it to be deemed so?

    I absolutely expected that Mr. McDonald should move if he doesn't like the law in Chicago. Or better yet, start a politcal movement to get the law changed. Do you not see the significance here. Before this ruling each State, Municipality, etc. had control of their laws regarding guns, ownership, etc. With this decision the Federal government has in essence said, decisions regarding this matter should be left to the Fed. Govt. What happens in 10-20 years when another case reachs SCOTUS and they decide differently regarding the 2nd. Guess what....the guns are bye, bye. It's amazing that those who espouse to be conservatives and constitutionalist have come down on the wrong side of this thing because their foresight is so short.

    Again, this is not a personal attack on anyone. I just feel very strongly about this issue. And please do not misunderstand me, I am as Pro-2A as anyone. This is just not the right way to go about preserving the right.

    MT
    Last edited by Monkeytown; 06-29-2010 at 11:29 AM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238
    I agree with you, MT, but up to a point. As we all know, the gun issue should be a foregone conclusion just reading the US and Alabama constitutions. But, that isn't the case. If the was no pro-gun stance in either of these documents, firearms ownership would have been outlawed by the anti-gunners decades ago. Some of the founders saw no need to put in a Bill of Rights since the Constitution didn't explicitly give the government powers against the freedoms mentioned in the BOR. We now know that government will grow well beyond its constitutional limits and therefore it will restrict limits on personal and group freedoms with or without a Bill of Rights.

    We see through the hindsight of history that Jefferson(?) was right and the "price of liberty is eternal vigilance". The court decision may have helped defeat an increase in gun laws, but it is short-lived if we don't do our job. If we would have maintained our vigilance instead of getting complacent, the SC would have never had to get involved in the first place. To keep government out of our lives, we need to keep them at bay by being dedicated to fight for our rights and never stop. We need not only to fight for gun rights, but we also need to shrink the size and growth of federal and state government so they can't even go after our rights anymore.


    www.alabamaopencarry.com

  21. #21
    Regular Member Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL, ,
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by AL Ranger View Post
    I agree with you, MT, but up to a point. As we all know, the gun issue should be a foregone conclusion just reading the US and Alabama constitutions. But, that isn't the case. If the was no pro-gun stance in either of these documents, firearms ownership would have been outlawed by the anti-gunners decades ago. Some of the founders saw no need to put in a Bill of Rights since the Constitution didn't explicitly give the government powers against the freedoms mentioned in the BOR. We now know that government will grow well beyond its constitutional limits and therefore it will restrict limits on personal and group freedoms with or without a Bill of Rights.

    We see through the hindsight of history that Jefferson(?) was right and the "price of liberty is eternal vigilance". The court decision may have helped defeat an increase in gun laws, but it is short-lived if we don't do our job. If we would have maintained our vigilance instead of getting complacent, the SC would have never had to get involved in the first place. To keep government out of our lives, we need to keep them at bay by being dedicated to fight for our rights and never stop. We need not only to fight for gun rights, but we also need to shrink the size and growth of federal and state government so they can't even go after our rights anymore.


    www.alabamaopencarry.com
    I'll buy that my friend!!

    MT

Posting Permissions

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