Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

I got my CCW permit 25 no 28 years ago. At the time there where few states that even allowed CCW so I guess my info is a bit dated. I transport firearms all over the country for shooting sports competitions and trade shows as a company rep and you realy do need to know exactly how to do it right. Its getting harder because many airlines are making it almost impossible. I usualy fly Southwest and very seldom have any problem at all. TSA even cooperates very nicely. Many I have talked to love to handle my engraved Colt revolvers.

Zindo

[edit on 6/26/2008 by ZindoDoone]

reply to post by jhill76


If you think that's bad, Bill Clinton signed a bill making misdemeanor domestic abuse grounds to relieve a person of his Second Amendment rights.

In the case you cite, however, check fraud is a serious crime that is often associated with violent offenses, so I think the law preventing any felon from owning a firearm is legitimate.

I do believe that in most if not all jurisdictions however, that a felon can petition the local sheriff to have his rights restored under certain circumstances.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


I know but in Indiana attempted check fraud. You know the case in which you get a fake cashiers check from selling something on ebay and take it to the bank unknowingly. Happened to a friend of mine, I believe that is just crazy.

reply to post by jhill76


To me that doesn't sound like attempted check fraud. That sounds like someone who was defrauded and unwittingly tried to cash a bad check.

Your friend needs a better lawyer.

How would anyone know that a check is bad unless they sent it through a bank?

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Yea I know. Just, some people don't have money for a lawyer, that's why he was selling stuff on Ebay. He went to the bank and they ran it through some kind of automated system and called the police immediately.

I understand regular check fraud, but attempted check fraud should be a misdemeanor.

I am surprised by the number of hunters that do not know or have a grasp of most of the state weapon (gun) laws. Many claim they have had guns forever so what they say is the law but many,many really don't know. One of my neighbors is a prime case of ignorance and a teacher of such.

I do believe an owner should know the weapon laws.

Many talk about Texas and its guns and population in a negative light. Here though to carry a hand gun, to get a CHL, one must pass a classroom and range proficiency test.

Edit: sp

[edit on 6/26/2008 by roadgravel]

I myself am very glad the Supreme Court ruled the way they did. I have not read the opinion, but this is one opinion I definitely am planning on reading.

Yes, we as Americans have the individual right to have guns in our homes. And when my finances become a bit more stable, I intend on applying for a concealed carry permit. To receive one, I'll take a class and I will begin to spend time at a range in order to learn more about the weapon I am going to purchase.

I honestly believe that all Americans should take a "hunter's safety" or a "gun safety" class in school. I know I did - my parents had to sign the permission slip. But I believe all Americans, including teenagers and children, should learn to respect guns as well as how to handle them. A great many of the accidents that I've read about in the news stems from someone making mistakes such as assuming a gun was unloaded or pointing a gun at someone in jest. If children learn respect for guns, maybe they wouldn't be so curious as to pick up Daddy's gun if s/he sees it lying around and maybe if Daddies and Mommies learn some respect for guns, maybe they won't leave them lying around in plain sight for children to get to.

I was raised around guns - my stepfather hunted whatever was in season - and he taught us to shoot off of our back deck into the hillside. Target practice was fun and, to this day, I still remember the bruise his .12 gauge shotgun left in my shoulder when I didn't hold it tight enough.

I don't understand why people are so afraid of guns. It's not the gun you should be afraid of - it's the people behind them who have the control over them. That's my worry. But by banning guns, you don't get rid of guns. By shutting down gun stores and making it illegal to sell or own guns doesn't stop the people who are willing to break the law. It seems like people who advocate gun control laws don't realize that the only people who are going to follow these laws are the same citizens they're trying to protect with these laws. It's not going to reduce crime. Washington, D.C. is a prime example. The murder rate there has increased since the gun ban was put in place. If anyone wants that from someone other than me, post and I'll shoot off a link. I don't have it handy at the moment.

Thank God I'm an American. Today and every other day.

At the end of the school term a couple of months back, my friend, who was a marksmen in the Marines, bought a rifle and brought it over to my crib. He informed me that almost all of the bullets were sold out at the store, and that Calfornia had legislation in the works that would limit the number of bullets purchased a day to 50 rounds. Can anybody confirm this?

reply to post by astronomine


Straight from the source. I'll leave you to form your own conclusion:

www.leginfo.ca.gov...

Originally posted by vor78
This is outstanding news, at least on the surface. We'll have to wait to see the details. I do know it was a 5-4 vote on the usual lines, with Kennedy siding with conservatives.

IMO, the four dissenting justices should be impeached immediately.

HANDS DOWN!

Those four liberal judges are four out of the five biggest enemies to America there is, with Pelosi being #5. Especially that Ruth Bader Ginsberg. That hideous troll of a woman is everything wrong with America hiding behind a black robe. I loathe her more than anyone in the world.

I have intentionally refrained from posting on this thread for a while due to my personal passion on matters pertaining to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Not that I am particularly adverse to flaming but I choose to rather take a "rolling thunder review" rather than a kneejerk response.

Just when my faith in the US system of checks and balances is eroding dangerously, one branch always seems to shore up my shaky knees by making a move such as this.

This may also serve as an obtuse correction to denying the states the authority to use the death penalty in child rape cases.

Now then; what about governmental perjury, larceny, and and an almost complete isolation from "We the people" ?

I truly hope the time frame our SCOTUS requires to address some other critical issues is shorter than the one for the second amendment.

PS: starred & flagged

Just to put the political angle to this thread:

McCain backs gun decision, Obama straddles issue

news.yahoo.com...

Not surprising as this response is directly in line with their voting records.

This is a great thread. I referenced it in my most recent podcast. I'm glad to see this discussion.

Originally posted by kerontehe
Just to put the political angle to this thread:

McCain backs gun decision, Obama straddles issue

news.yahoo.com...

Not surprising as this response is directly in line with their voting records.

From the news story you cited:
Barack Obama sought to straddle the subject by saying he favors an individual's right to bear firearms as well as a government's right to regulate them.

What a shock...Obama being a spineless jellyfish on a tough issue.
No real convictions, no real ideals. Just like John Kerry and Bill Clinton.

im not a bush guy....

But...

This desicition has vindicated bush


both of his appointies made the correct dissicion of sideing with the US Constitution...


G.W Bush, for all his problems, will go down as one of the best presidents ever because of this ruling.

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by Perplexed
I would bet my next years pay check crime rates would go down if everyone carried a side arm in plain view.

We're not at that point, but this certainly will give us a number of good test cases...
...Assuming that this ruling stays in place for a number of years...

There's a city in Georgia that made it legally required for a household to maintain firearms & the Ordinances have been in place since 1981. Their own Police Department have been compiling crime statistics over the years & guess what? Violent crimes have dropped, even though population has been increasing over time! I posted the Ordinances & the Crime Statistics for Kennesaw, GA over in this thread (near the bottom of Page 1).

Still, the biggest problem with "anti-gun" people is that while they still retain the freedom of choice not to own firearms, but they also seek to deprive everyone else of our legal Right to own ours. Even to go so far as to violate the Supreme Law of the Land to do so.

Never mind the fact that it's the Supreme Law of the Land, never mind the fact that All powers of legislation are for Congress only, never mind the fact that not even Congress is allowed to "infringe" upon the 2nd Amendment, never mind the fact that even a voting majority of Citizens can't "legislate away" our Rights if Congress can't either, never mind the fact that their very own gun-owning neighbor may someday save their worthless hides even if they can't save themselves...No, they just gotta try to make everyone vulnerable to a government going increasingly tyrannical.

We have been watching this for along time. I am happy at how it turned out. I think they knew there would be immediate trouble if they voted against privately owned arms. They arent stupid, but you could see something like this happening before people start getting wisked off to camps.

reply to post by lw2525


Obama is going to have a big problem with gun rights before its over:

SB 2165

The text of the bill:

Sec. 24-10. Municipal ordinance regulating firearms;
8 affirmative defense to a violation. It is an affirmative
9 defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits,
10 regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if
11 the individual who is charged with the violation used the
12 firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another as
13 defined in Sections 7-1 and 7-2 of this Code when on his or her
14 land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.

Obama voted No at the March and May senate votes. He was elected to the US senate 5 days before the November vote and appears not to have been listed as a State senate member at the time.

The language is steeped in lawyer-speak, but appears to be a confirmation of:

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.

www.cbsnews.com...

If I'm interpreting that bill correctly, the game's up. If the McCain camp presses this one (and I know the NRA and GOA will), it'll stick to Obama like superglue. That issue is at the very heart of gun ownership for most gun rights advocates. He has supported other gun restrictions, but this one will be devastating, I think.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by vor78]

im very curious in australia we can own rifles and in very rare circumstances handguns but id like to know why you would want to own an assault rifle i know about the thrill of using it on the range but for what reason would you need to own one. A hand gun would protect your home good enough wouldnt it?
Do you need to work security to own one an assult rifle or do you need just apply for one

[edit on 27-6-2008 by Sunray]

reply to post by Sunray


The availability depends upon local laws. In my state (which has very low levels of violent crime, yet very high levels of gun ownership), the regulations are very lenient and anyone over 21 and with a clean criminal history can easily obtain an assault rifle if they wish. As for the reason to own one...why not? There are a great many things in this life that we do not 'need'.

On the other hand, the fact is that an 'assault' rifle serves the purposes intended under the 2nd Amendment quite well. They're ideal for both home defense and hunting and many carry a price tag significantly cheaper than their civilian semi-automatic counterparts, making them more accessible to the masses.

For me, though, it comes down to two points. One, what is the practical difference between an AR-15 and a Browning BAR Safari, both chambered for the same round? In reality, there is precious little difference. A higher capacity magazine, that's about it (though nothing is preventing anyone from designing and publicly selling a high cap mag for civilian rifles...see the Ruger Mini-14 as an example) This is a sticking point for me in the debate, because I know where it will lead. The real intent is to ban all semi-automatic rifles, not just 'assault' rifles. 10-20 years later, it'll be lever and bolt action rifles.

Another problem? Rifles of all types represent less than 10% of all firearm deaths in the US. As many people are killed in bicycle accidents in the US as are killed with rifles of any type. So what's the point of an assault weapons ban? There really doesn't seem to be one.

The handgun ban is an attempt, however misguided, to address the real issue. Around 80% of the firearm related deaths in the US are attributable to handguns. The rest are divided among shotguns, rifles and 'other' weapons.