It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 01:21 AM
Wow, this is news. Now, what's the catch? There's always a catch with this idiot.

Always, always, he has something up his sleeve.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:40 AM
reply to post by GradyPhilpott

Sorry but the NRA isn't pro-gun. It's a gun control organisation. If you don't believe it, just look at what bill they have supported... and how they chose not to dismantle the ATF when they had the chance back in the days.

The NRA is saying that this ruling is pro-second amendment, it's not. Another proof that the NRA is BS.

The ruling say that the second amendment can be restricted by law... which means that NYC ban-like can be imposed everywhere in the country... they issue permit, then 10 years down the road, they don't issue them anymore.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:34 AM

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...."

Hello Sidewynder, just a few things. First, there is no need for any apology. As a writer you got your points across very well and I admire the passion with which you did it. Your post also shows the time and effort you've put in to educating yourself and that proves your love for freedom and shows your awareness ot the responsibility that comes with it.

That being said, the points I didn't quote from your post were dead on and you got much across in very few words. I pulled four quotes from your post, one of which I have already commented on. Of the other three two are comments as well and only one caught my attention because I was surprised (because of eveything else you said) you said it the way you said it considering how knowledgable you seem to be.

The only reason I point it out is because I know others out there read these posts and learn from them. That's the main reason I read them. Some info is worthless and some have good solid facts within them. Yours is of the latter quality so because others with less knowledge will read and learn from it I thought it important enough to comment on.

I'm betting you've already figured out what I'm talking about anyway, so if you've made a typographical slip of the tounge accept my apology for I mean no disrespect and I hope you take what I say in the well meaning spirit it is given.

"This "RIGHT" was given to us by our founding Fathers when this great nation was struggling to get started."

I still think you made a typographical slip of the tongue but that right was given to you by no one. You were born with it. I'm sure you know this already but as I said, for the sake of other readers it was essential to bring it up.

"But I have faith in this countries people(not our government) that we will get our collective heads out of our "ARSES" soon.."

Your faith is admirable and you stated a very key point. This absolutely has to happen for freedom to survive in the U.S. This cannot be stressed enough. By the way, very eloquently put.

"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...."

I agree, we should not have needed them to do it and it is what they're there for but still.....I am a bit leary of the decision as my first instinct is not to trust the govt. in any shape or form because it is well known for giving with the one hand while taking with the other. I haven't read the decision yet but will soon and reserve judgement til then.

Lastly, I agree, violence is an option but should be used as a last resort. Sadly, (unless the people get their collective heads out of their "arses") history shows that when a people can't take the abuse any longer they have no choice and are forced by their abusers to fight back. The people have no choice but to wake up then. The goal is to wake them up before violence is needed.

Thanks for your time and patience, hope to read more from you in the future.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:33 AM
Group of said men who refused to "grow up".

I wonder how many of the delegates were armed?

[edit on 28/6/08 by Hanslune]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:21 AM
reply to post by Vitchilo

I have been a member of the NRA for at least 16 years. I have been a Life Member since 1995 and am a currently a Benefactor Member. I have held annual memberships in the Golden Eagles and the Second Amendment Task Force for many years, as well as a contributor to the NRA-ILA. I am a member of the Madison Brigade.

I don't need anyone to tell me what the NRA is.

The NRA has supported limitations of gun ownership under certain circumstances, such as the mentally ill and convicted felons.

On the whole, however, no single organization has had the impact of the NRA on the preservation of the Second Amendment, gun safety and training, hunting, and competitive shooting sports.

To call the NRA a gun-control organization is an absurd lie.

I have held annual memberships in the GOA, RKBA, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and the Law Enforcement Alliance over the years and while I support their efforts, all these organizations combined cannot come close to the positive influence the NRA has had in the defense of the Second Amendment.

You may believe as you wish. You may belong to any gun-rights organization you so choose. I don't think there is one I have not belonged to, but your assessment of the NRA is dead wrong.

So, to summarize, don't come around me blowing smoke about the NRA.

I am the NRA and I know where we stand and I know what we've done and all the lies can't change that.

The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in America today.

The Democrats tremble when they hear our name.

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."

And furthermore, you have not even read the synopsis of the SCOTUS ruling or you would understand that while the Supreme Court acknowledges certain limitations on what types of weaponry may be legally owned and where they may be legally carried, the capricious laws regarding licensing or registration were specifically forbidden.

All these matters I have either covered directly or have linked to in my previous posts.

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.

[edit on 2008/6/28 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:39 AM
Living in Kentucky I get to enjoy gun laws that are not near as restrictive as in some other places in the U.S. This is all the more reaso to watch the rest of te country being things happening elsewhere can easilly end up on your doorstep. I was more than pleased to see that this ruling was handed down adn hope that it is not some smoke screen keeping attention diverted while something else is slipped under the door.

This can be a great motivator for other states/cities to get more active in their local governments to not only fight restrictions in second ammendment rights but others as well.

I too am an NRA membewr and have been a while. I think they do some great things. No I don't totally agree with them nor do I with anyone or any orginization. That's not neccessarilly a bad thing.

Blaming guns for crimes is like blaming my keyboard for typos

[edit on 6/28/2008 by DrumJunkie]

[edit on 6/28/2008 by DrumJunkie]

[edit on 6/28/2008 by DrumJunkie]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:35 AM
Chicago suburb has already suspended their handgun ban in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling and lawsuits filed by the NRA in Chicago and San Francisco.

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.

[edit on 2008/6/28 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:24 AM
I received an E-mail this AM and I'll let you read it. Maybe someone can confirm?

The following is a memo sent to Washington, DC residents by Cathy Lanier, Washington, DC Chief of Police:

From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD)
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Subject: Supreme Court Update


Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia's handgun ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision.

The Supreme Court's ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private residents who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. It is important that everyone know that:

a.. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department's Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.
a.. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
a.. Third, the Supreme Court's ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.

Lastly, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, in my opinion firearms in the home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked.

I will comply with the Court's reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit. At the same time, I will continue to vigorously enforce the District's other gun-related laws. I will also continue to find additional ways to protect the District's residents against the scourge of gun violence.

Residents who want additional information can visit the Metropolitan Police Website at Residents with questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at 202-727-9490.


Cathy Lanier
Chief of Police

Memo Source:

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:26 AM
reply to post by kdial1

What would we do if the federal government got out of control and we did not have this right as citizens? We would have no way to stand up against an out of control government... Like the Revolutionary War, our founding fathers saw the need for this right in order to stand up against a government that was no longer for the people.

I have observed that the constitution doesn't seem to mean much anymore, the courts do what they want. I truly believe that the only reason the 2nd amendment still has so much controversy is that the government knows that there are too many people that would raise arms, if they tried to just take our right to bear arms away, and lose, so they are working on sneaky approaches, by tricking people into giving up their guns, and slowly taking the rights away from everyone until the time comes when there's not enough people with guns to put up a fight.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:11 PM
reply to post by Roper

Assuming that this is real, D. C. really needs a police chief who is fluent in English or doesn't have some sort of learning disability.

It is obvious that this woman who promises to abide by the letter and the spirit of the law either hasn't read the law or can't comprehend it.

It is her opinion that guns should be stored in the home either unloaded, disassembled, or locked.

The ruling directly addressed the matter of keeping a handgun for defensive purposes and that any law that rendered a handgun inoperable for purposes of self-defense was unconstitutional.

Furthermore, licensing and registration have been used in the past to limit gun ownership to an elite few and this practice is also condemned as unconstitutional.

The court also ruled that laws that prohibited firearms from special places could still stand. Those special places are places like schools and federal buildings, not "outside the home."

D. C.'s gun ban is going to court and while certain restrictions regarding handgun ownership may survive a trial, those which are intended to render a firearm useless or otherwise prevent a person from defending himself or exercising his Second Amendment rights will be struck down.

And in the future, with enough lawsuits, these insane gun laws will become obsolete.

I wouldn't let Cathy Lanier sell me Tupperware, much less command a police force.

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.

[edit on 2008/6/28 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:18 PM
A great day for our liberty !!!

I'm off to buy a new Colt 6920 and an ACOG by way of celebration.

Oh dear, I'm so concerned what the europeans will think of us now.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by Roper


I agree with Mr. Philpot on this one. I also want to point out that you have other rights besides the right to own a gun... you have the right to toss this so-called police chief out on her pacifist butt (through voting of course, almost forgot we're in a gun-rights thread

I'd say the problem you have in DC is not a gun-control issue, but rather an idiot-control issue.


posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:16 AM

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.

I'd still bet that Kennesaw, GA is less restrictive...Their "gun control" laws equate to making it a legal requirement to own a gun.

Of course, there are some exclusions, but just about anyone who doesn't want to own a gun could fit into one exclusion or another.

What's that, you say? No way? The proof is in their Municipal Codes!


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)

Even more...Their violent crimes statistics have been decreasing since the Ordinance went into effect, even though they've still experienced population growth...The only thing about these statistics is that they haven't distinguished "gun-related" crimes from the overall category of "violent crimes" in the posting.

I think my wife & I may move to Kennesaw...

Originally posted by DrumJunkie
Blaming guns for crimes is like blaming my keyboard for typos

Judging from that particular post I'm quoting from...You need a new keyboard. And we should lobby the government to specify what kind of keyboard is acceptable.

There's still a long way to go as far as upholding the 2nd Amendment stands, however...The Constitution (2nd Amendment) is still being "regulated down" against the actual wording & intent.

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.

So, by the strict interpretation of the wording & intent of this Amendment & considering the personal responsibilities inherent with our Rights (in the example above, owning a nuke is not showing a good sense of "personal responsibility" & therefore a reasonable ban for the public), when it comes to Arms for the purpose of defending self & property, the regulations still being imposed/enforced do consyitute as "infringing" the Right to own & bear arms.

There's more data on the 2nd Amendment (history, context, debates,etc.) right here.

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?

The answer is simple...We die. In the 20th century alone, nations that have disarmed their people have slaughtered the people by the millions. There's no reason to think that the USA disarming their people would produce results any different.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:09 AM
link" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> - 16k -

For those who want to read 2nd Amendment Opinion

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:20 AM


[edit on 29-6-2008 by AlBeMet]

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:21 AM
This is a nicely American-flavored event.
Plenty of people who aren't gun owners/enthusiasts believe in the right to bear arms. (is this the right to wear t-shirts.?.. sorry)

It is symbolic of the collective will of the People as the final authority. The governemnt is supposed to serve the People.
What is the relationship between governemnt and citizens when the government has a monopoly on force?

Guns rights cannot be revoked without bloodshed. You'd have legions of otherwise law-abiding productive taxpayers ready to go to war over it.

It does say some other things about us, though. This is the echo of the near-mantra of the excecutive office here regarding international competition:
"The use of military force is never off the table."
Right on down through the tiers and ranks. This value or attitude is fundamental to any genuine patriotic sentiment of a N. American.

I think an armed citizenry is a polite citizenry. It encourages us to show a little respect and/or at least give each other a wide berth. I avoid prolonged presence in or exposre to population centers. They murder your nature and reinforce an inappropriate sense of self importance.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by djerwulfe]

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:49 PM
And as an update, it appears that, not so surprisingly, the liberals in DC are just going to try to do whatever they want:

No mention of semi-automatic pistols, only revolvers being allowable.

If DC doesn't wake up, this is going to end up right back in the Circuit Court or even the Supreme Court very soon. This isn't going to go over well at all with either Court, and if DC isn't careful, the USSC may just revisit this in the next session and issue an even more broad ruling in favor of gun owners.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:19 PM
Liberals will stop at nothing to pervert the Constitution.

It's amazing that these public servants haven't yet figured out that when you have a population consisting of say 67% criminals, there is going to be a lot of crime.

To give human qualities to an inanimate object or to a concept is one of the dumbest intellectual errors that can be made and yet the entire gun control argument is based upon reification.

There is one thing they should know. The NRA has been preparing for this for decades and we are very well funded.

We are the very model of grassroot movements and the people will prevail in the long term.

This happened even before the ruling.

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.

[edit on 2008/6/29 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:46 PM
I find the timing of this SCOTUS ruling very parculiar indeed.

for Generations the SCOTUS avoided making a decision on the 'right to bear arms'.
Why now, at this particular [point in the political & social & economic cycles

Just about when the USD is going down in value,
millions of homes being foreclosed,
jobs going overseas or given to temporary visa holders from the former soviet europe and eur-asia, poor nations .
up to two-hundreds of thousands of the 2million city & state workers being axed
some 150,000 to 200,000 finance industry workers expecting pink-slips
gas & diesel at $4-$5, food scarcity, water getting scarcer monthly,

the list goes on with things that combine to make life a disaster for many hopeless folks---
who may find a need to go ballistic on the repro man or bill collector or the sheriff issuing the eviction/foreclosure papers.
Just at this particular juncture of social-economic upheavel, with the prospoects of a ration-card state and homelessness/joblessness as the average Joe & Janes future ===
It is Now that SCOTUS clarifies (after more than 100+ years) that anyone &
everyone has the right to own a gun, and to not have trigger locks or other impdements for its use, engaging that gun, weapon, firearm ???

I smell something oozing down the hallowed halls of justice,

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]

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:00 PM

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]

You don't have a firearm do you? You don't know where I live do you?


new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in