Majic,

I wish I could applaud you for that. Well written and to the point.

I find it funny myself that we need the supreme court to point out what is already written for certain people to believe it's true.

Back to the basics.

The supreme court needs to tell people because the government can dress up the facts and paint so many bogey man to scare the crap out of the people that they are willing to beleive anything. That is where the Supreme Courts come in and wade through the legal double speak and the posturing and the apocalyptic prophecies to find out the cold facts and defend the American people against a government that wants to disarm the citizenry and force them into subjugation.

If the Supreme court didnt exsist, there would be a small civil war in Washington D.C every time the police came to confiscate our guns for some new bill dreamt up to disarm the populace and prepare the foundation for tyranny.

I suspect that maybe there are many people like myself. People who don't own firearms but who are glad the constitution has a provision affirming our right to keep and bear arms. I've wondered if keep and bear arms is the same thing as ownership. Of course, there's a strong implication that "keep and bear" means to "own and carry", but I've never been really sure. Anyway, I know many people who want nothing to do with firearms, at the same time we understand the need to have the choice of choosing or refusing to arm ourselves. The issue of the right to keep and bear arms is clearly a hot potato because of many people like myself, in addition to those who already own firearms and those who are against gun ownership.

My gut feeling is that the Constitution should stay as it is, or rather the practice that is in place today relative to the 2nd Amendment should continue. I don't have a problem with a requirement that folks should register their weapons because there are obvious good and reasonable benefits to law enforcement. On the other hand, private ownership means private ownership, and I respect that as well. My opinion is that state and local government are best able to determine what sort of policies are best implemented for their regions. What is applicable to a city or town in Virginia might not be applicable to a city or town in California. There certainly are no easy solutions in cities like Los Angeles and New York City, where many people consciously make the decision not to own firearms despite the level of crime and violence present in certain areas of those cities. Anyway, those are not really the issues that the Supreme Court is facing. The strongest sense I have is that the Court should leave well enough alone. The people of the United States do have a duty to protect their liberty against seen and unforeseen threats.

In the days of the American Revolution "militias" consisted of all able bodied adults. That was the meaning or definition. Modern day people try to refer to the militias as the National Guard, but that was not what the framers of the US Constitution had in mind. In fact, these Minutemen were ready to go into battle at a minutes notice to fight the Redcoats.
These militia members worked on farms, plowed fields, delivered items, and stayed ready. They would take time to train for one day per year which wasn't much more than a firearms competition where they get drunk and shoot. does that sound organized to you? I don't think so!!

Originally posted by NWRHINO
The US constitution is a very strong document in legal structure terms.

The "bill of Rights" is really untouchable, without redefining the meaning of America

Although many are fearful of directives set in motion by the BUSH administration, these directives have not changed the constitution or any interpretation of it.

The directives are an extra layer of legal contrivance that must be addressed by a court before moving forward to the constitution for an ultimate decision. Many directives have been overturned at the district level.

Why do people talk of "Presidential Directives" as if they were law? The Pres. has no legal right to dictate law.

Originally posted by Roper

Originally posted by astmonster


This gov is already screwing the american "citizens" and when guns are gone its really over. make no mistake this case will take guns away...............

Well I hope not, if so then we will have our 2nd civil war.

I just can't see me turning in my firearms or not being able to go the range, hunt, protect myself.

I still think it will be a ruling directed at D.C. only.

Roper

Even if it is directed at only DC it will set a legal precedent which all courts will follow.

Originally posted by Realtruth
emergencies.

Sometimes good people have to stop bad people, permanently.



[edit on 21-11-2007 by Realtruth]

Well here's my take on it. In Chicago if you shoot a person that breaks into your home you go to jail and could possibly be sued by them or their family. There is no such thing as self defence anymore.

Also, even if by some miracle they don't arrest you they will take every gun in your home leaving you vulnerable to retaliation if it was gang members that broke in.

I agree with what you have said but the gov. makes it so the criminals have more rights than we do now.

I grwe up in a bad area of Chicago and you are correct about two things, criminals will have weapons no matter what the law says, and most of the time the cops are only there to take reports.

Originally posted by lazy1981
Well here's my take on it. In Chicago if you shoot a person that breaks into your home you go to jail and could possibly be sued by them or their family. There is no such thing as self defence anymore.

Also, even if by some miracle they don't arrest you they will take every gun in your home leaving you vulnerable to retaliation if it was gang members that broke in.

It's all about how you handle the situation and then keep your mouth shut. You have no obligation to say anything until...............well actually you don't have to say anything even in front of a judge.

"what you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"

The best thing if you stop a perp inside your house with a firearm is say nothing, until you retain a top notch attorney. Most people don't know that the NRA will supplement or even take cases of self protection and they have the best attorneys around.

I have seen a few people in my day neutralize B&E perp's and were cleared. The people that did time were the individuals that tried to make a murder look like self defense.

You can be sued by anyone, so what? Lawsuits don't mean anything unless the court awards the plaintiffs, and Lawsuits are not criminal cases the judgments are either for or against. After the judgment, it is up to the winning party to enforce collecting the money, the court doesn't do that.


[edit on 21-11-2007 by Realtruth]

you won't have to turn them over they will wait till
you leave for your job then retrieve them for the government.
it won't be B&E they will not need a warrant when they remove
our right to bear arms they will create an enter and retrieve
law to assist the peacekeepers (oops I mean police)
in helping us obey the law

Originally posted by Nathabeanz
Well no matter what these nut heads desides is the correct 'interpretation' of the constitution and the 2nd amendment they won't be getting me to voluntarily turn in my fire arms

I decided to look up H.R.3162 USA PATRIOT ACT to see if any part of it could be used against the citizen. Should we try and revolt against the SC ruling (against the 2nd amendment) we would fall under SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

They have us coming and going!

Originally posted by lazy1981

Originally posted by Realtruth
emergencies.

Sometimes good people have to stop bad people, permanently.


[edit on 21-11-2007 by Realtruth]

Well here's my take on it. In Chicago if you shoot a person that breaks into your home you go to jail and could possibly be sued by them or their family. There is no such thing as self defence anymore.

In a B&E, the only alternative is shoot to kill. Not only are you justified in this instance, the perp will have no chance to sue you for injury.

Originally posted by pstrron
I decided to look up H.R.3162 USA PATRIOT ACT to see if any part of it could be used against the citizen. Should we try and revolt against the SC ruling (against the 2nd amendment) we would fall under SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion

Well, I can think of a number of obnoxious Senators who could be considered Terrorists based on this portion of the Code.

I have read many great replies and want to ask a question based on this info.

Who has the authority to interpret the Constitution today?

That looks like the deciding factor in all of this. I have seen many ideas of what the public thinks, my ideas are still subject to change since i'm not sure on the definitions and this SC decision, so who is right?

I don't know what the founding father's were thinking when they wrote this and nobody here was around back then to have first hand knowledge. I'm not going to assume anything since i'm trying to find out who has the authority to decide on what is says in today's day an age as well as back then. Does anyone know?

Originally posted by Roper
No one does! The Constitution is the law of the land. It's the laws that are passed that need to be interpreted.

This is wrong. At least on a question of rights, the Supreme Court has the final say. I can provide you the citation to the relevant authority should you be so interested.

Now, as to laws passed by Congress and executed by the President, those branches may have a role in interpreting the constitution. The Congress may not pass laws that it thinks are unconstitutional, and the President will veto laws that he deems unconstitutional. Of course, if the law is passed over the President's veto, there are those signing statements to worry about. But I think the President has shaky ground to stand on in that respect.

[edit on 11/22/2007 by Togetic]