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: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981

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.



Like I said it's all about how you handle the situation. Your now talking about something completely different than B&E's. What happens in your house stays in your house. And when it comes to a perp with a gun or what you thought was a gun. Case closed and your in the clear.

Either way, I would rather be tried by 6, then carried by 6. People need to stop being afraid of the law and start to understand and use it like criminals and lawyers do.

Did you know that you can get arrested and convicted just for pretending to have a gun? Say for instance the perp has his hand in his coat pocket and pretends to have a gun, this is construed as an actual gun in a court of law and will be prosecuted as such. So whether it is in your house or in a bank the circumstance is viewed as a concealed weapon.

We need to focus on the topic and not let this thread get derailed. Thanks.



[edit on 23-11-2007 by Realtruth]




posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


"What you thought was a gun" I like that. I know what you're talking about with the idea of a person pretending to have a gun.

I'm not trying to derail the thread I just wanted to give an example of how bad our legal system has deteriorated the rights of the citizen when it comes to self defence. And how Chicago is a prime example of that, and how it has come dangerously close to a police state. This is where the whole country will go if we allow them to take away our gun rights.

It all happens a little bit at a time.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981

It all happens a little bit at a time.


Couldn't agree with you more. We all have to be conscious about this process, then act on it as well.

It's people like you that actually make the difference.

I have a good gut feeling on this issue and the gun-control people are not going to like the outcome of this case.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


I always hoped to see the SC take this issue up, but sadley I no longer feel that even they have the moral fortitude to use the constitution as a guide for interpreting the laws. As it was intended.

Instead they will most likely interpret the constitution to mean what they want it to mean. This way they can dodge the whole issue and stick to the status quo.

Unfortunately, I have a bad gut feeling about this. the above could prob. be a best case scenario.

Worst case is that this whole thing was put together in order that the SC could find against the 2nd amendment. People will revolt and the government would use Bush's new "Pres. Directives" to impose martial law. Call me a nut, but this doesn't smell rite to me.

And no I don't want to put it all off on Bush, I think the Government in Washington is mostly all in it together. Sorry for getting off track but these are my thoughts on the matter.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
For me, the sole silver lining to the current makeup of the Court is the tantalizing possibility that the ruling might definitively state that the Second Amendment guarantees individual citizens the right to own firearms.

This might seem to be self evident from a quick reading of the BoR, but apparently there are plenty of people out there who would like to 'interpret" the right away.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Togetic
 


I downloaded the .pdf file for the case but you can read it directly on the web at:

www.zprc.org...



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Text Red Why would our government want us unarmed? Why has this issue even been taken to the Supreme Court? If DC wants to ban handguns, that's their choice. I'm keeping mine!



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Here is a link that look at all the Supreme Court gun cases in the last 100 plus years.

I think this is really good case law and decision to give us a good indication on how the supreme court will rule.

Description of Supreme Court Cases and Decisions

I have read through many of the case and decision, but I will weigh in after others have given their take on this information.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
One of the big deciding factors in this will be to determine what a militia is and more importantly, is not.

I snagged this off of dictionary.com:
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.


#1 - National guard, reserves? seems so
#2 - reserves again I'd say
#3 - this one will be a b***h in a way. since it singularly uses males. It specifically excludes old people and women.
#4 - Interesting. Even broader, but basically you have to declare yourself a militia.

This is going to be a war on words and terms and on phrases and phrasing.


Basic civics classes say who interprets the constitution? The judicial branch.

Legalistic type question. it says 'to bear arms' now, given that phrasing, does it imply a power to dictate 'which arms' or can that be taken to cover 'arms as any type of weapon'?

This will aso bring into question, as I see it, more interpretation of article 1. The ever fun elastic clause. "The Congress shall have power …To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." which was the one used to establish the legality of the national bank as a measure to control interstate commerce under the commerce clause of The Con.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

...

#3 - this one will be a b***h in a way. since it singularly uses males. It specifically excludes old people and women.
The term "male" in this context can easily be neutered; therefore this is actually great for one to hang their hat on. Good find.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
One of the big deciding factors in this will be to determine what a militia is and more importantly, is not.



The Founders in their various quotes have told us exactly what the militia of the several states is, Citizens.


apc

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


Interesting. It would appear that there is at least a relatively recent interpretation of "the People."


www.cs.cmu.edu...

(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

...

The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and
established by "the People of the United States." The Second
Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and
powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U. S.
Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the
right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art.
I, section 2, cl. I ("The House of Representatives shall be
composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the
several States"). While this textual exegesis is
by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by
the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and
to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national
community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection
with this country to be considered part of that community.



I would hope that these and other court opinions like it determine the outcome of this matter. Unfortunately it is rather difficult to trust our government to do the right thing these days.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by CoffinFeeder
 


Nobody interprets the constitution. It was not meant for that, the judicial branch is to use the constitution in order to interpret "NEW LAWS."



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by NellahB
Text Red Why would our government want us unarmed? Why has this issue even been taken to the Supreme Court? If DC wants to ban handguns, that's their choice. I'm keeping mine!


"An unarmed citizen is no longer a citizen, he is a subject."
If that doesn't make it clear to you then you will never understand.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Roper
 


reply to post by lazy1981
 


The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution, espeically with respect to the rights enumerated therein.

The case in question is Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958), stating, quote:


Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the ‘supreme Law of the Land.’ In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as ‘the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,’ declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60, that ‘It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.


[edit on 11/26/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
reply to post by Roper
 


reply to post by lazy1981
 


The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution, espeically with respect to the rights enumerated therein.

The case in question is Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958), stating, quote:


Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the ‘supreme Law of the Land.’ In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as ‘the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,’ declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60, that ‘It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.


[edit on 11/26/2007 by Togetic]


Ok, I said that the Constitution was the law of the land and Article VI said the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as ‘the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,’ declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison,

What's the differences?

Roper



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Roper
 


I think you are trying to site the 2nd paragraph of Article 6 which says,

"The Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

It makes clear that the judges of the land are "bound" by law to follow the Constitution and any laws or treaties made by the government. Nowhere in it does it say that the SC gets to interpret the Constitution. They only have the leagl power to look at the law/laws in question and use the Constitution as a guideline and conclude wheather said law is in agreement with the Constitution.

I realy hope that you get it now. That Judge that you site doesn't know the limits of his own power and they would like you to be naive enough to take it at face value.

READ THE CONSTITUTION! Please.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by lazy1981
 


Whether Marshall was right or not, the fact remains that this is how the system works. We therefore need to work inside of it because changing it is not a practical option.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   
So anyhow, I was just wondering. When they start taking our guns, is it a catalyst for Civil war? Because I can't honestly see a disarmed US going more then 2 weeks "united"



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Smple, honest truths, and eloquence do not pages to state... Much like, "The Right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed". Don't see how anyone other than a total lame brain, or to be politically correct, a mental defective, can interpret that in any other way than how it reads.

Some things, even the Supreme Court ought to have enough common sense to leave alone.




top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join