It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SideWynder
"apollogies to historians and actual writers that are able to express this more eloquently than I."
"This "RIGHT" was given to us by our founding Fathers when this great nation was struggling to get started."
"But I have faith in this countries people(not our government) that we will get our collective heads out of our "ARSES" soon.."
"Our "Judicial System" Has just REAFFIRMED one of our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!! We should not have needed them to do it. But now it makes defending the rest of the bill of rights easier to defend, without, or possibly with the use of violence...."
As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Wilmette Suspends Local Handgun Ban
Wilmette's law, enacted in 1989, levied fines of up to $750 for handgun possession and allowed the village to seek a judge's order to have seized weapons destroyed.
The last case he recalls involved a 2003 incident in which a resident, Hale DeMar, was cited after using a handgun to shoot and wound a burglar in his home. The case mobilized state gun right groups and led to the passage of a law that gave gun owners a defense to local prohibitions if the weapon was used in self-defense.
Wilmette's charges against DeMar were eventually dropped. He could not be reached for comment Thursday.
NRA Files Suits In Chicago, Three Suburbs Challenging Gun Bans
The National Rifle Association has entered the fray over Chicago's handgun ban.
The NRA filed a lawsuit Friday against the city ban. It said it also filed comparable lawsuits in the suburbs of Evanston, Oak Park and Morton Grove. Several other pro-gun groups filed a separate lawsuit yesterday challenging Chicago's ban.
The flurry of litigation follows a Thursday U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a Washington, D.C. gun ban.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Originally posted by DrumJunkie
Living in Kentucky I get to enjoy gun laws that are not near as restrictive as in some other places in the U.S.
Chapter 34: ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 34-1. Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefor.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
(Code 1986, § 4-3-10)
Sec. 34-2. Use of firearms.
No person shall fire a gun, pistol or other firearm in the city, except in the defense of person or property, and except peace officers or military forces of this state or the United States, in the discharge of official duties.
(Code 1986, § 11-1-4)
Originally posted by DrumJunkie
Blaming guns for crimes is like blaming my keyboard for typos
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: New Merriam-Webster's
In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
What would we do if the federal government got out of control and we did not have this right as citizens?
On Wednesday, June 4, a Pennsylvania court issued a permanent restraining order against two major planks of Philadelphia’s municipal gun control measures the city enacted in April. The measures, banning so-called assault weapons and restricting handgun purchases to one per month, violate Pennsylvania’s state preemption laws to maintain uniformity over a statewide system of gun laws passed by the state legislature.
“We are pleased with the ruling, but we will continue fighting to protect Pennsylvania’s overall state preemption,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “The provisions struck down by the court were the backbone of the city’s plan, but there is still work to do. NRA will continue to seek justice and freedom for the law-abiding citizens in the crime-ravaged city of Philadelphia.”
On April 10th, Philadelphia’s city council passed a package of gun control bills that clearly violate state law and the state constitution. Mayor Michael Nutter, in a show of defiance against the state legislature, signed the bills. Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham warned the city council and mayor that their taxpayer-funded folly was unconstitutional, but the city decided to dedicate its resources to pursuing this foolish lawsuit anyway, rather than spending those resources on pursuing and prosecuting criminals.
Originally posted by St Udio
I find the timing of this SCOTUS ruling very parculiar indeed.
this is only a offhand, intuit feeling i have, but..
.. you all understand that i'm a certified schizophrenic, so i might be imagining it all.
thanks for your time
[edit on 29-6-2008 by St Udio]