It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Gun-Rights Case

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Roper
 


At the moment, the only thing that I have is the Wikipedia entry under the United States Constitution saying "when a Supreme Court decision clarifies the application of a part of the Constitution to existing law, the effect is to establish the meaning of that part for all practical purposes." I have made a note to myself when I go back home (Thanksgiving away and all) I'll get the exact case name and citation for you and I'll post it; I'll U2U it as well.

Best.




posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
everyone must keep an eye on this. They are trying to take our arms so if one day some kind of martial law is imposed we have nothing to fight with. When this case is brought up in the court literally.....we must fight for it not to be altered and our option to keep a free-state from imposed government with arms should never be hindered.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
As a gun owner and a gun owner with a concealed carry permit, I can honestly say that I will never give up a single one of my firearms. I won firearms for many reasons, but the number one reason is protection. I hate to use the word survivalist because people lump you in with nut jobs like McVeigh, so I would just refer to myself as disaster prepared. The second anyone tries to take away my primary means of self defense is the second that person becomes my primary enemy.

Sorry if this post is a littke scatterbrained and short, but I am trying to get things together for Thanksgiving, Have a good one.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


The civilian populace must be able to hold guns. Governments should fear their people, not the other way around.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I think what a lot of people are failing to see here with this argument is that this not a FEDERAL law, it's a STATE law (or in this case, district). The handgun ban applies ONLY to Washington DC, and is being appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States for Constitutional validity. Obviously, it's UN-Constitutional because it is in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

This is NOT an attempt of the current White House administration to take away the guns of the common man. The law, the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, applies ONLY to Washington DC, banning residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, and unregistered firearms. This law was passed by the Washington DC CITY COUNCIL, NOT the federal government.

The Brady Bill, commonly known as the Assualt Weapons Ban of 1994, WAS a federal law signed into action by President Clinton. This FEDERAL law made it illegal for ANYONE to own a fully automatic firearm, such as the Tec-9, AK-47, M-16, etc. It also created very broad rules that various states have exploited to do determine what qualifies as an assault weapon and what doesn't. Thankfully, this law ended in 2004, and has not been renewed. However, there's a new bill out called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2007, spearheaded by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), that if passed, would be even more strict and oppressive of the Second Amendment. Different argument for a different thread.

With the DC handgun law going up to the Supreme Court, it will be the first time that a direct interpretation to the Second Amendment has taken place, in regards to the banning of firearms to the common man. The verdict is highly anticipated by both sides, pro-gun and anti-gun. While certain aspects of gun control should be implemented, it's important to keep in mind one thing that is statistically proven throughout the world: less guns to the public = higher crime rate. The argument that if you remove guns from the populace, crime will go down, is false. Prime example is Washington DC. Being as handguns are illegal to own, self-protection and home defense is equally minimized. This is a direct blow to the safety and self-preservation of the regular law-abiding citizen. Obviously, criminals that engage in violent crime do not have the same mindset as John Q. Citizen. They don't care about the legalities or laws regulating possession of firearms. They'll get what they're after one way or another.

What SHOULD happen in this case going before the Supreme Court is NOT the definition of a milita, but a strike-down of the current DC law stating that it's unconstitutional, and that the residents of Washington DC DO have the right to own and possess handguns.

If they want to get rid of handguns because of the false theory that less guns equals less crime, then lawmakers need to apply anti-gun ownership where it will be most effective: target criminals, repeat offenders, and improve police enforcement. The background check that takes place in other states taps into the federal database to see if someone is a convicted felon. If you're a felon convicted of a violent crime, then you don't get a handgun. And if for some reason you do get one and the cops get you, you get tossed in jail for a very long time, and the key gets thrown away. Put arms back in the hands of the law-abiding citizens, and violent crime will drastically fall. That's not my theory, that's statistically proven throughout the world.

It's sad to see that the actions of violent criminals and gangbangers have affected the general populace as much as it has, and hopefully this current DC law will be repealed, and the people can again carry and protect themselves. My hope is that this landmark case will trickle down into the states courts, and the super restrictive gun laws will be repealed nationwide.

Yes, I'm a card-carrying member of the NRA, and I'm active duty military.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Step by step.

"well regulated"!

Regulation (n.) - A principle rule, or law designed to control or govern behavior.
Regulate (v.) - To control or direct according to a rule. To adjust in conformity to a specification or requirement. To adjust for accurate and proper functioning. (No farking! (oh, that is only my interpretation.))

Okay! Hup, hup, hup, hup! Twirl around 360 counterclockwise! Hup, hup, hup, hup! Twirl around 360 clockwise! Hup, hup, hup, hup! Turn to the Left! Hup, hup, hup, hup! Turn to the Right! Hup, hup, hup, hup!
Now for the Parade! Marching to the Fife and Drums! (over the parade route through the countryside and towns.)

Militia (n.) - A citizen army as distinct from a body of professional soldiers. The armed citizenry as distinct from a regular army. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. The whole body of physically fit male civilians eligible by law for military service.

(No humans need apply -- just some humor!)
Does not say anything about any piece of paper required. (Ah, I think that would be the Second Amendment though!)

Ego ( (n.) - The self, esp. as distinct from the world and other selves. 2. (Psycho-anal -- whoa what a word there!) The personality component that is conscious, most immediately controls behavior, and is most in touch with external reality. 3. Self-confidence; self-esteem.

Egocentric (adj.) Self-centered; selfish. 2.(Philos.) Viewed or preceived from one's own mind as a center.

Egoism (n.) - The ethical doctrine that morality has its foundations in self-interest.

Egomania (n.) - Obsessive preoccupation with the self.

Egotism (n.) THe tendency to speak or write of oneself excessively and boastfully.

Egotist (n.) - A conceited, boastful person. 2. A person who acts selfishly; egoist.

(Ahem - know any political candidates?)

Any further questions can be asked at your own expense, for someone else may have an answer? I heard tell of Exocists and Phychologists existing in this modern world.

College is where a person learns that there is always more to learn even afterwards.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Sounds like Bush is scared of getting shot by a fellow American. Gee, I wonder why.

Either way, It wouldn't surprise me in the least...

They've already made it clear they will inject whatever they want into your kids, whenever they want, and arrest you if you take a stand.

They can also arrest you at any time, day or night, without a warrant or criminal charge, and they don't have to notify your family.

You aren't allowed to voice violent opinions about the US government... that is also a crime.

It would make sense if they took away your one right to defend yourself...

I mean, they wouldn't want you holding a gun while they're dragging you away for saying something angry about the government after watching your child get injected with mercury.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NJ Mooch
 




www.dojgov.net...

Scroll half way down this article, and there are numerous quotes from Founding Fathers on gun ownership, which should give clear insight that the 2nd Amendment refers to the population, not just a militia.

here are a few examples-

JAMES MADISON

"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms."

SAMUEL ADAMS

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . ."



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Thank you. This is the golden writing that must be smeared into the face of these stupid idiot senators.


It is very simple to define the classic American. As long as we may do as we please and in little fear or problems to do such, we remain happy and peaceful. But the second you limit us, we become a violent animal. One that will not go down without it's honor.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
If the City Council of Washington D.C. really wants to stop crime, they should arm all of the responsible adult citizens of their city.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrangler95CSA
This is NOT an attempt of the current White House administration to take away the guns of the common man. The law, the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, applies ONLY to Washington DC, banning residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, and unregistered firearms. This law was passed by the Washington DC CITY COUNCIL, NOT the federal government.
Thank you; such claims are unsupported by any evidence because Bush is a Republican and has a stance close to the gun lobby.


What SHOULD happen in this case going before the Supreme Court is NOT the definition of a milita, but a strike-down of the current DC law stating that it's unconstitutional, and that the residents of Washington DC DO have the right to own and possess handguns.
I don't necessarily think that this does not raise the question of "militia" because the question is directly related to the scope of gun ownership and because the Court can choose the scope of the question that they want to hear.

But I 100% agree with your sentiments that Second Amendment laws should be narrowly tailored to meet specifically enumerated policy objectives.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Anyone who debates this is guilty of ignorance. This should be a undebatable subject. You never, ever, give up your guns or let a government weaken your ability to intimidate it if it gets out of control. Period. The second Amendment was designed to keep the people strong against tyranny from with in. And anyone who argues my point is ignorant of history. Every gun confiscation ever done by any power has been followed by genocide. Only the ignorant debate the merits of gun control.
cantyousee



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrangler95CSA
I think what a lot of people are failing to see here with this argument is that this not a FEDERAL law, it's a STATE law (or in this case, district). The handgun ban applies ONLY to Washington DC, and is being appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States for Constitutional validity. Obviously, it's UN-Constitutional because it is in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

This is NOT an attempt of the current White House administration to take away the guns of the common man.


The thing that scares me is if they vote that DC can constitutionally ban handguns, then how many other communities will follow suit? Then they come after types of firearms until the only thing left is an air rifle.

Quick edit: Forget to mention, I like the first line of the second paragraph. Everyone blames the Bush administration for every little thing in this country.

[edit on 22-11-2007 by Solliz]



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
In Parker vs. District of Columbia, the appellate case on appeal to the US Supreme Court, the court's reasoning is extremely persuasive, and follows the original intent of the constitution precisely, which makes any contrary opinion have to really spin history on its head to reach the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is merely a collective right. A few excerpts:

"In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee
is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most
important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the
holders of the right—“the people.” That term is found in the
First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has
never been doubted that these provisions were designed to
protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion,
interference, or usurpation."

"Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government, see Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897) (describing the origin of the Bill of Rights in English law), the Second
Amendment only guarantees that the right “shall not be
infringed.” Thomas Cooley, in his influential treatise, observed
that the Second Amendment had its origins in the struggle with
the Stuart monarchs in late-seventeenth-century England. See
THOMAS M. COOLEY, THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 270-
872 (Rothman & Co. 1981) (1880)."



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
"the people" are two powerful words.

Roper



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   
This one I am really looking forward to the decision on, it has the potential to set groundwork to start removing some of the already disasterous restrictions placed on us already. Gun control advocates should be slapped into having common sense in my opinion. The second ammendment exists for a reason, it is quite clear the Founding Fathers never intended for the citizens to be outclassed by the Military when it came to the weapons of the citizens. The biggest reason for it being there is so that should a time ever come that the citizens of this country were no longer served by the people in power we would be able to remove said power. These men were highly aware of the pitfalls of our form of Government, and fully intended to make sure the means to restore it to what it should be was always within our grasp.

The SC is not ignorant to this fact either and I expect the decision to be some mealymouthed B.S., without ever making a real decision on it just to maintain the status quo.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   
by creating these laws they are telling us
one thing loud and clear "to regain control
of their lives the American people are going
to have to break the United States" because
they are not going to allow us to take it back.
and if that happens (not very likely) but IF
whats going to happen? is NATO going to protect
us till we get our # together NO Russia China
and everyone else is going to march in and
carve us up for our own good.


reply to post by pstrron
 



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Zharkov
 


That is very interesting; where did you find the text of the case?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
[

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.




[edit on 21-11-2007 by Realtruth]


I'm sorry to say that the prevailing law here is , "Egual Force" if they have a knife and you use a gun you go to jail because you did not use egual force.

Even so, lets say for example that you get into an arguement with an individual and they take a swing at you and hit you, if you hit them back it's not self defence. You both get charged with assault, even if every witness says that you were defending yourself. Law enforcement says that you have to litteraly run away and that is what they consider "self defence."

I know it seems outlandish but I'm sorry to say that's the way it is in Chicago.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
oops, "equal"



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join