D.C handgun ban violates 2nd amendment

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7634
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

D.C handgun ban violates 2nd amendment

#1 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:15 am

Opinion today from the Supremes. Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
PlacentiaSoccerMom
Posts: 8134
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:47 am
Location: Placentia, CA
Contact:

#2 Post by PlacentiaSoccerMom » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:18 am

Image

User avatar
ulysses5019
Purveyor of Avatars
Posts: 19442
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:52 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: D.C handgun ban violates 2nd amendment

#3 Post by ulysses5019 » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:19 am

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Opinion today from the Supremes. Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
Just don't take away my right to bear ciggys or mini bar bottles.
I believe in the usefulness of useless information.

User avatar
PlacentiaSoccerMom
Posts: 8134
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:47 am
Location: Placentia, CA
Contact:

#4 Post by PlacentiaSoccerMom » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:20 am

Image

User avatar
Evil Squirrel
Merry Man
Posts: 1212
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:13 am
Location: Sprotsie Baby's back door!

#5 Post by Evil Squirrel » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:26 am

So when are they finally gonna ban squirrel hunting? I'm talking major 8th Amendment violation, here....
Squirrels are the architects of forests, the planters of trees, nature's own acrobats and show a zest for life that can inspire us. Every day should be National Squirrel Appreciation Day!

--squirrelmama (10/3/07)

Many of these (squirrel) migrations were probably caused by food shortages as well as habitat overcrowding. We solved that for them. We not only reduced their habitat, we reduced the whole species by about 90%. The least we can do now is share a little birdseed with them.

--Richard E. Mallery

2008 Squirrel of the Year Award winner

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 13591
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: D.C handgun ban violates 2nd amendment

#6 Post by BackInTex » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:31 am

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Opinion today from the Supremes. Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
Great news.

Now they need to extend that right to shoot and kill child rapists since they think leathal injection is too cruel for them.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

War is where the government tells you who the bad guy is.
Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.
-- Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

User avatar
nitrah55
Posts: 1613
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:46 am
Location: Section 239, Yankee Stadium

#7 Post by nitrah55 » 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.
I am about 25% sure of this.

User avatar
PlacentiaSoccerMom
Posts: 8134
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:47 am
Location: Placentia, CA
Contact:

#8 Post by PlacentiaSoccerMom » 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.

User avatar
AnnieCamaro
Four-Footer
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:04 pm
Location: Rainbow Bridge

#9 Post by AnnieCamaro » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:24 am

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.
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.

/:P\
Sou iu koto de.

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 27070
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

#10 Post by Bob Juch » 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.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7634
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

#11 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:30 am

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.
and you would be wrong. The prior precedents about military weapons were not affected by the opinion.
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
Evil Squirrel
Merry Man
Posts: 1212
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:13 am
Location: Sprotsie Baby's back door!

#12 Post by Evil Squirrel » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:33 am

AnnieCamaro wrote:
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.
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.

/:P\

Uhhhhh.... now why would you be wanting to have a gun, Annie? :shock:
Squirrels are the architects of forests, the planters of trees, nature's own acrobats and show a zest for life that can inspire us. Every day should be National Squirrel Appreciation Day!

--squirrelmama (10/3/07)

Many of these (squirrel) migrations were probably caused by food shortages as well as habitat overcrowding. We solved that for them. We not only reduced their habitat, we reduced the whole species by about 90%. The least we can do now is share a little birdseed with them.

--Richard E. Mallery

2008 Squirrel of the Year Award winner

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7634
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

#13 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » 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.
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
ne1410s
Posts: 2961
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: The Friendly Confines

#14 Post by ne1410s » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:36 am

"Guns don't kill people. Bullets do."

Floyd R Turbo
"When you argue with a fool, there are two fools in the argument."

User avatar
kayrharris
Miss Congeniality
Posts: 11968
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:48 am
Location: Auburn, AL
Contact:

#15 Post by kayrharris » 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.
"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest. "
Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
TheCalvinator24
Posts: 4886
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

#16 Post by TheCalvinator24 » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:42 am

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.
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."

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.
It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. —Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
AnnieCamaro
Four-Footer
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:04 pm
Location: Rainbow Bridge

#17 Post by AnnieCamaro » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:43 am

Evil Squirrel wrote:
Uhhhhh.... now why would you be wanting to have a gun, Annie? :shock:
For my physics class, silly squirrel. I'm studying moving spatial particles, vectors and trajectories.





Some critters are so paranoid.
Sou iu koto de.

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 27070
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

#18 Post by Bob Juch » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:45 am

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
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.
and you would be wrong. The prior precedents about military weapons were not affected by the opinion.
Then I'm right actually.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Evil Squirrel
Merry Man
Posts: 1212
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:13 am
Location: Sprotsie Baby's back door!

#19 Post by Evil Squirrel » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:46 am

AnnieCamaro wrote:
Evil Squirrel wrote:
Uhhhhh.... now why would you be wanting to have a gun, Annie? :shock:
For my physics class, silly squirrel. I'm studying moving spatial particles, vectors and trajectories.

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.....
Squirrels are the architects of forests, the planters of trees, nature's own acrobats and show a zest for life that can inspire us. Every day should be National Squirrel Appreciation Day!

--squirrelmama (10/3/07)

Many of these (squirrel) migrations were probably caused by food shortages as well as habitat overcrowding. We solved that for them. We not only reduced their habitat, we reduced the whole species by about 90%. The least we can do now is share a little birdseed with them.

--Richard E. Mallery

2008 Squirrel of the Year Award winner

User avatar
TheCalvinator24
Posts: 4886
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

#20 Post by TheCalvinator24 » 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.
It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. —Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
SportsFan68
No Scritches!!!
Posts: 21294
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: God's Country

#21 Post by SportsFan68 » 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.
-- In Iroquois society, leaders are encouraged to remember seven generations in the past and consider seven generations in the future when making decisions that affect the people.
-- America would be a better place if leaders would do more long-term thinking. -- Wilma Mankiller

User avatar
nitrah55
Posts: 1613
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:46 am
Location: Section 239, Yankee Stadium

#22 Post by nitrah55 » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:07 am

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.
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..."

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."
I am about 25% sure of this.

User avatar
SportsFan68
No Scritches!!!
Posts: 21294
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: God's Country

#23 Post by SportsFan68 » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:17 am

Dang! It sounded so simple when RadioDude gave his one-minute report.
-- In Iroquois society, leaders are encouraged to remember seven generations in the past and consider seven generations in the future when making decisions that affect the people.
-- America would be a better place if leaders would do more long-term thinking. -- Wilma Mankiller

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7634
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

#24 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:21 am

nitrah55 wrote:
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.
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..."

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.
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
a1mamacat
Posts: 7104
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm
Location: Great White North

#25 Post by a1mamacat » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:23 am

Bob Juch wrote: Look at all the school shootings that could have been minimised if someone else had a gun.
or, conversely, if NO ONE had a gun!

I do not understand the rabid mentality of it being a right to possess a lethal weapon.
Lover of Soft Animals and Fine Art
1st annual international BBBL Champeeeeen!

Post Reply