Court to address: Do you have a legal right to own a gun?

Court to address: Do you have a legal right to own a gun?

www.usatoday.com

WASHINGTON — Guns, and questions about how much power the government has to keep people from owning them, are at the core of one of the most divisive topics in American politics.

Nowhere is that divide more pronounced than in the gap between Americans' beliefs about their rights under the Second Amendment, and how courts have interpreted the law.

Nearly three out of four Americans — 73% — believe the Second Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken Feb. 8-10.

Yet for decades, federal judges have seen the Constitution differently, allowing a range of gun-control measures imposed by governments seeking to curb gun violence.

Lower court judges overwhelmingly have ruled that the right "to keep and bear arms" isn't for individuals, but instead applies to state militias, such as National Guard units. The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly declined to hear appeals of those rulings, fueling the debate over gun control and tension between the law and public opinion.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow, lets hope the court's use common sense to make the right decision, if not some bad things may come of this.

www.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Oh boy, the sparks may fly over this. Hopefully the courts rule on the law and not on their own personal beliefs, HAHAHAHAHA! If they do end up saying we dont have the right, this may well be where the people of this country feel the last straw has been drawn.

If it is ruled that we don't have the individual right, the first thing I would do is go get one. I've been meaning to for some time now, it is pretty clear that the decline of the country is escalating and that we should all be arming ourselves for what is to come.

Arm yourselves.

Been a lower court and that has been trying to make an issue of this, it's not going to be a big deal the second amendment stands at it is.

As long as the supreme court do not take the issue everything is fine.

Originally posted by Ionized
If it is ruled that we don't have the individual right, the first thing I would do is go get one. I've been meaning to for some time now, it is pretty clear that the decline of the country is escalating and that we should all be arming ourselves for what is to come.

Arm yourselves.

I have been thinking the same thing recently, better go get some while I still can.

I believe they will rule not in the peoples favor as thats the direction this country has been headed.

reply to post by marg6043


I hope you are right. The civil war that would happen would be the bloodiest in history. The washington "elite" would find themselves with more guns than ever.....pointing their way........

Originally posted by marg6043
Been a lower court and that has been trying to make an issue of this, it's not going to be a big deal the second amendment stands at it is.

As long as the supreme court do not take the issue everything is fine.

The Supreme Court will look at one of the lower courts rulings in March.

As stated in the article.

I agree with you on that one, heliosprime, even my husband has been saying that they will only take his guns away death.

And about all my neighbors and people I know are very touchy about their second amendment.

That is why is so much talk and pushing by the anti gun crowd but you don't see much done about it.

So far the supreme court take this issue with extreme caution.

reply to post by SilentBob86


---Nearly three out of four Americans — 73% — believe the Second Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken Feb. 8-10.

That pretty much tells you all you need to know. A ruling against individual gun owners would be incredibly unpopular. Not a good idea when the President and both houses of Congress have approval ratings anywhere from the teens to the low 30s, depending on the poll.

I suspect that it would indeed be the last straw for many in the southern and western states, areas with populations who are already sick and tired of liberal policies as it is. And this is one of the two things you DON'T touch in those areas (the other being religion).

[edit on 27-2-2008 by vor78]

Originally posted by marg6043
So far the supreme court take this issue with extreme caution.

As well they should. An unarmed citizenry is a slave citizenry. Just look at all of history.

Do people think the hollocaust would have happened if the SS thought they might get shot at?

reply to post by ATruGod


You and Ionized should run out and immediately and get some long guns in your home. If applicable you should also start the ball rolling on getting pistol permits whether you want a pistol or not because the government loves messing with the permitting process.

Also, I have noticed something I find quite funny. Every single time the 2nd Amendment comes up for debate (nearly always fueled by some anti-gun hopolophobe steeped in ignorance and fear) sales of firearms surge and it's always the sales of those speciffic firearms targeted by the anti-gun crowd such as the dreaded "black" guns and any handgun. The sales of high capacity magazines also surge for owners and non-owners alike as in the time of Clinton's idiotic do-nothing ban the prices of these magazines went through the roof. A high-cap mag for a Beretta 92 you bought pre-ban for $15 could have gotten you $120 during the ban.

Just like these municipalities and their idiotic gun buy-backs actually put more guns on the street threats of bans and regulations work wonders for getting more guns off of the shelves and into the hands of the population.

Well you would think that USAToday could at the very least get their facts right.

From the source article linked above:

The last time the Supreme Court took up a major gun-rights case was in 1939. That dispute, United States v. Miller, involved two men who were caught transporting an illegal sawed-off shotgun across state lines. The court did not directly address the scope of the Second Amendment. Yet its decision rested on the notion that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to firearms, not an individual right.

The above is a lie. Lets go into this one armed with facts.

The court in the Miller case said that the second DID create a protection for private citizens not directly involved with the militia as the militia is supposed to be everyone who meets the criteria to fight when the call to arms is given. The SC specifically said in the Miller case that militia members were to bring their OWN WEAPONS. Privately held weapons. Pull them right from the closet, hop in the car, drive to the local blue line and put in work.

The reason Miller lost was that his shotgun was not deemed to be of military usefulness, however his lawyer did not make the argument that "sawed off shotguns" had been officially used in WWI by American military forces. Sawed off shotguns, or Remington and Winchester trench guns, are part of US military doctrine, have been ever since. Hell, we had shotguns in Iraq.

Had Miller hired a competent attorney the SC would have been forced to rule in his favor as per their own guidelines.



[edit on 27-2-2008 by cavscout]

Originally posted by marg6043
So far the supreme court take this issue with extreme caution.

Here's the bigger problem. The NRA has gone soft. The recent changes to the NICS "insta check" have allowed low level beurocrats to decide that even a similar name or description not disqualifies someone from "legal transfer" even if the supply fingerprints proving they have no crimminal background. So in states like Mass. where they just uploaded very old data, not criminal background convictions but even 20 year old warrants, the NICS is denying legal gun transfers.

The original "intent" of the law was to keep convicted felons from getting guns. Now even those who can prove identity theft from fingerprint data keep getting screwed by the "similar name" BS.

The NRA approved this attack on the 2nd amendment. The courts won't be far behind...............

Originally posted by ATruGod

The Supreme Court will look at one of the lower courts rulings in March.

As stated in the article.

Yes but remember this part of the article, also the supreme court will keep what the administration has backed during the last 8 years.

In 2001, the administration reversed decades of Justice Department positions when then-attorney general John Ashcroft said the Second Amendment did cover an individual right to have guns

Been this year a very controversial election year, the supreme court will abstain from making decisions that can be controversial and that can create outrage.

Heliosprime

The supreme court will keep the law as it for time being.

I don't anticipate a ruling that blows out the Second Amendment - the Court is pretty conservative at this time.

I expect the Court to confirm that the Second Amendment, just like the rest of the BoR, guarantees an individual right and not a collective one.

Originally posted by marg6043

Heliosprime

The supreme court will keep the law as it for time being.

You miss the point, regardless of what the court says, the brady bill and its updates after VT are removing guns based on "imagined" crimminality, not actual FACT. Someone in Texas is blocked from getting a gun based on someone with a similar name doing "somethin" in Massachuestts. Two totally unrelated persons, except for name alone. In states where some minor violations prevent gun transfer, a person who has owned a gun for years is instantly a crimminal and may in fact be arrested and his guns taken. This is already happening nationwide.

Soon you can anticipate guns being taken from those who have even minor speeding tickets based on local interpretation of the law.

The "militia" is the PEOPLE! At the time the second amendment was put into place, there was no standing army, just common folk. I think the judges are misinterpreting the second amendment.

I've been wondering how long it would take for this to happen.
For over two centuries everyone has considered the 2nd Amendment at face value and I for one didn't think any politician would touch it with a ten foot pole.
Herr Bush is sure doing a number on "We the People".
First he enacts his Patriot Act,second he passes the Military Commissions Act, and now he wants your guns and leaves you helpless to protect yourselves.
I've discussed the 2nd with my sister and we both seem to think it has to do with where commas are placed,yet we disagree on it's true meaning.
I personally believe that your forefathers gave all Americans the right to bear arms given the nature of history at the time.
She tends to look at the 2nd from a modern perspective.
It seems apparent that National Guards (were there any in the 18th century?) and state militia would be carrying arms so why write it into the Constitution?
Is there a clause that says the Army,Navy etc are allowed to carry weapons?These are rhetorical questions,I'm simply illustrating the 'grasping at straws' technique of the government.
Guns in Canada are much more difficult to obtain, but I'll bet my last dollar that many Canadians have their private stash.

Just keep in mind that if arms are banned and you're caught,the Gestapo might pay you a visit and find a nice cozy FEMA camp for you.
I fear America has crossed a line from which her people may never recover.

Originally posted by citizen truth
It seems apparent that National Guards (were there any in the 18th century?) and state militia would be carrying arms so why write it into the Constitution?

No, the original admendments were written way before the authorization of state militias, which didn't occur until earlier 20th century, 1906 I think? That is why it is so laughable to imply that the founding fathers intended the 2nd admendment to state militias because they didn't exist at that time or for the next 130 years! Montana and several other states have submitted formal warnings based on the so-to be decided case. Here is the related thread, the OPs links will give you some more information as it has for me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What worries me is that if they rule in favor of the state militia arguement and one of these states actually goes ahead with succession from the US, which they have the right to do as they have a valid arguemnet that that ruling contradicts the contractual agreements that were settled upon when they joined the United States...this is how the CIVIL WAR started folks, not good, not good at all, arm yourselfs at all costs, things are going to get bad, between this, Bush stepping-down (we'll see) and 72 lbs of plutonium impacting Saturn, we are going to be screwed.

BTW...the Supreme Court will start hearing arguements in the case on March 18th.


[edit on 27-2-2008 by percievedreality]

[edit on 27-2-2008 by percievedreality]