D.C handgun ban violates 2nd amendment
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:15 am
Opinion today from the Supremes. Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
WWTBAM Bored
A home for the weary.
https://www.wwtbambored.com/
D.C handgun ban violates 2nd amendment
Page 1 of 3
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:18 am
Re: D.C handgun ban violates 2nd amendment
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:19 am
Just don't take away my right to bear ciggys or mini bar bottles.themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Opinion today from the Supremes. Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:20 am
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:26 am
So when are they finally gonna ban squirrel hunting? I'm talking major 8th Amendment violation, here....
Re: D.C handgun ban violates 2nd amendment
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:31 am
Great news.themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Opinion today from the Supremes. Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
Now they need to extend that right to shoot and kill child rapists since they think leathal injection is too cruel for them.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:00 am
I'm confused.
The Constitution says people can own guns, and puts that in the context of having a militia. Doesn't say anything about hunting, doesn't say anything about individual self-defense.
The little I've been able to see from Scalia's decision has him saying that the Constitution bars any state, city, whatever, from passing a law that would prohibit someone from owning a gun for hunting or self-defense.
Where is the logic in that argument? Is there some part of the Constitution I missed? Scalia's conclusion is, in its way, as ephemeral as Roe v. Wade.
By the way, I am not an anti-gun guy, even though I've only used firearms once in my life- I out-shot an experienced friend target shooting, and decided I would retire undefeated. I do think guns should be like cars- you ought to be able to prove you can use them before you get to use one, and you ought to carry insurance against their mis-use.
That said, I think there's a difference between saying the DC law was bad and the DC law is unconstitutional.
The Constitution says people can own guns, and puts that in the context of having a militia. Doesn't say anything about hunting, doesn't say anything about individual self-defense.
The little I've been able to see from Scalia's decision has him saying that the Constitution bars any state, city, whatever, from passing a law that would prohibit someone from owning a gun for hunting or self-defense.
Where is the logic in that argument? Is there some part of the Constitution I missed? Scalia's conclusion is, in its way, as ephemeral as Roe v. Wade.
By the way, I am not an anti-gun guy, even though I've only used firearms once in my life- I out-shot an experienced friend target shooting, and decided I would retire undefeated. I do think guns should be like cars- you ought to be able to prove you can use them before you get to use one, and you ought to carry insurance against their mis-use.
That said, I think there's a difference between saying the DC law was bad and the DC law is unconstitutional.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:17 am
My Dad loved guns. At his house in Oregon, he used them (in their cases) as doorstops. My sister and I were schooled early on their proper use and safety. We went to the gun range with him and were allowed to shoot.
When I turned 18 and moved out on my own he bought me a gun.
I couldn't drink, but I could own a gun.
I personally think that the framers were trying to protect the security of the state rather than protecting individual rights to bear arms. I know though that if somebody had tried to take my Dad's guns away they would have had to pry the gun from his cold dead hand, so I have sympathy for that position as well. I just wish that so many evil people didn't have guns.
When I turned 18 and moved out on my own he bought me a gun.
I couldn't drink, but I could own a gun.
I personally think that the framers were trying to protect the security of the state rather than protecting individual rights to bear arms. I know though that if somebody had tried to take my Dad's guns away they would have had to pry the gun from his cold dead hand, so I have sympathy for that position as well. I just wish that so many evil people didn't have guns.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:24 am
It's that old argument about "If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will own guns." I don't have a gun. My mom wouldn't buy me one, even if I asked nicely. That's okay, but, if they try to take my big teeth, they'll have to pry them from my cold dead mouth.PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:I know though that if somebody had tried to take my Dad's guns away they would have had to pry the gun from his cold dead hand, so I have sympathy for that position as well. I just wish that so many evil people didn't have guns.
/:P\
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:27 am
I haven't read the opinion yet and won't have time to do so until sometime tonight. I doubt it says anything about restricting the type of guns that can be owned. We don't want every home to have an AK-47.
The problem with banning guns is if you do so, then only the cops and bad guys will have them. If a bad guy shows up and there are no cops around (the usual case), then there's a problem. Look at all the school shootings that could have been minimised if someone else had a gun.
The problem with banning guns is if you do so, then only the cops and bad guys will have them. If a bad guy shows up and there are no cops around (the usual case), then there's a problem. Look at all the school shootings that could have been minimised if someone else had a gun.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:30 am
and you would be wrong. The prior precedents about military weapons were not affected by the opinion.Bob Juch wrote:I haven't read the opinion yet and won't have time to do so until sometime tonight. I doubt it says anything about restricting the type of guns that can be owned.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:33 am
AnnieCamaro wrote:It's that old argument about "If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will own guns." I don't have a gun. My mom wouldn't buy me one, even if I asked nicely. That's okay, but, if they try to take my big teeth, they'll have to pry them from my cold dead mouth.PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:I know though that if somebody had tried to take my Dad's guns away they would have had to pry the gun from his cold dead hand, so I have sympathy for that position as well. I just wish that so many evil people didn't have guns.
/:P\
Uhhhhh.... now why would you be wanting to have a gun, Annie?
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:34 am
PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:My Dad loved guns. At his house in Oregon, he used them (in their cases) as doorstops. My sister and I were schooled early on their proper use and safety. We went to the gun range with him and were allowed to shoot.
When I turned 18 and moved out on my own he bought me a gun.
I couldn't drink, but I could own a gun.
I personally think that the framers were trying to protect the security of the state rather than protecting individual rights to bear arms. I know though that if somebody had tried to take my Dad's guns away they would have had to pry the gun from his cold dead hand, so I have sympathy for that position as well. I just wish that so many evil people didn't have guns.
Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded inusing select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents....Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. .... It was clearly an individual right,having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia.To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:36 am
"Guns don't kill people. Bullets do."
Floyd R Turbo
Floyd R Turbo
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:37 am
Evil Squirrel wrote:So when are they finally gonna ban squirrel hunting? I'm talking major 8th Amendment violation, here....
Just be glad you don't live in England, or you'd be history my dear friend.
The next R.I.P. here would be for Evil Squirrel.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:42 am
I happen to think it was intended as an individual right, but I can accept your position if by "state" you mean "the several states" and not the "national state."PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:I personally think that the framers were trying to protect the security of the state rather than protecting individual rights to bear arms.
There's just something about the language "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" that tells me that the right rests in people, not in governments.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:43 am
For my physics class, silly squirrel. I'm studying moving spatial particles, vectors and trajectories.Evil Squirrel wrote:
Uhhhhh.... now why would you be wanting to have a gun, Annie?
Some critters are so paranoid.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:45 am
Then I'm right actually.themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:and you would be wrong. The prior precedents about military weapons were not affected by the opinion.Bob Juch wrote:I haven't read the opinion yet and won't have time to do so until sometime tonight. I doubt it says anything about restricting the type of guns that can be owned.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:46 am
AnnieCamaro wrote:For my physics class, silly squirrel. I'm studying moving spatial particles, vectors and trajectories.Evil Squirrel wrote:
Uhhhhh.... now why would you be wanting to have a gun, Annie?
As long as none of those vectors or trajectories are aimed at my tree! And you better keep it out of the reach of Lizbit....
I always hated that musical Annie Get Your Gun.....
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:48 am
Am reading the opinion, and so far, it seems spot on.
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:57 am
It struck down the DC handgun ban.
Regulations are still permitted.
I really want an assault weapons ban for everyone except the military. This is coming from someone who at one time was co-owner of 18 firearms, so don't tell me how I'm after your gun and I'd have to pry it from your dead fingers etc. etc.
Regulations are still permitted.
I really want an assault weapons ban for everyone except the military. This is coming from someone who at one time was co-owner of 18 firearms, so don't tell me how I'm after your gun and I'd have to pry it from your dead fingers etc. etc.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:07 am
But, also nowhere else in the Constitution is a right granted with a introductory clause, as in, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."TheCalvinator24 wrote:Am reading the opinion, and so far, it seems spot on.
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.
Scalia has constructed a convoluted argument that reduces to, "Let's ignore the first clause in the sentence."
So I would take it that Scalia would see no difference in the meaning of these two sentences:
"I'm hungry, so I'll order a pizza."
"I want to rob the delivery guy, so, I'll order a pizza."
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:17 am
Dang! It sounded so simple when RadioDude gave his one-minute report.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:21 am
nitrah55 wrote:But, also nowhere else in the Constitution is a right granted with a introductory clause, as in, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."TheCalvinator24 wrote:Am reading the opinion, and so far, it seems spot on.
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.
Scalia has constructed a convoluted argument that reduces to, "Let's ignore the first clause in the sentence."
So I would take it that Scalia would see no difference in the meaning of these two sentences:
"I'm hungry, so I'll order a pizza."
"I want to rob the delivery guy, so, I'll order a pizza."
It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s
prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:23 am
or, conversely, if NO ONE had a gun!Bob Juch wrote: Look at all the school shootings that could have been minimised if someone else had a gun.
I do not understand the rabid mentality of it being a right to possess a lethal weapon.