Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
dirtking

BIG day for gun owners

70 posts in this topic

Top court says Constitution gives individuals gun rights; strikes down DC handgun ban

It is nice to know an American can still own a gun/hand gun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its most nice we had a Bush administration supporting gun owners in this case as opposed to the Clinton justice department which actually went to court to argue there was no individual right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd amendment!

Good decision by the court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concerning part for me is it was a 5-4 decision.....I had hoped for a little more concensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important (and most controversial) decisions are usually 5-4, aren't they? I might be wrong, but that's the way it seems.

This is great news. We gotta keep our eyes peeled for ammo taxes and lead ban legislation, though. Keep up the fight, guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another good decision by the court. I thought DC's arguments for the ban were pretty weak.

The important (and most controversial) decisions are usually 5-4, aren't they?

Certainly seems so as of late. Although the makeup of the court will certainly be changing, I like the current balance. Balance is the key word here. Kennedy provides a buffer of sorts against absolute control of one side or the other.

It's interesting that two weeks ago Kennedy was considered an activist judge by those who opposed the habeas decision. I guess the justices are only activists when you don't agree with their decision. cry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another good decision by the court. I thought DC's arguments for the ban were pretty weak.

Originally Posted By: HuskerBen
The important (and most controversial) decisions are usually 5-4, aren't they?

Certainly seems so as of late. Although the makeup of the court will certainly be changing, I like the current balance. Balance is the key word here. Kennedy provides a buffer of sorts against absolute control of one side or the other.

It's interesting that two weeks ago Kennedy was considered an activist judge by those who opposed the habeas decision. I guess the justices are only activists when you don't agree with their decision. cry

theyre activists when they make a decisions based on anything other than the constitution. enemy terrorists combatants are not granted any rights under the US const. Domestic terrorists are, but nothing in the constituion grants enemy combatants such rights. the court decided they did without any const. basis. hence, they became activists. has nothing to do whether one agrees with a decision or not. Same goes with McCain-Feingold 60-90 day ban on political speech. courts upheld that even though political speech is protected under the first. gun ownership and the right to keep and bear arms is protected under the second. if you can find were in the constitution enemy combatants are granted the same constitutional rights as american citizens then i will eat my hat.

nothing in this ruling says no background checks or that guns can be owned by felons, even though they do anyways

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you can find were in the constitution enemy combatants are granted the same constitutional rights as american citizens then i will eat my hat

Ahh, see the Constitution does not "grant" rights, it protects rights. Believing the Constitution "grants" rights is a fundamental misunderstanding of the document. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

...; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...

I guess they're not a "person" but an "enemy combatant" because the Executive says so. That's good enough for me.

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

It has not been suspended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: tacklejunkie
if you can find were in the constitution enemy combatants are granted the same constitutional rights as american citizens then i will eat my hat

Ahh, see the Constitution does not "grant" rights, it protects rights. Believing the Constitution "grants" rights is a fundamental misunderstanding of the document. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

...; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...

I guess they're not a "person" but an "enemy combatant" because the Executive says so. That's good enough for me.

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

It has not been suspended.

you still have not answered my question. and i suspect you wont. so a twist on your argument, an enemy combatant isnt one simply because the courts said they werent. thats good enough for me. oh well, i wont hijack this thread. the ruling was correct on the dc ban. and if one is willing to read the writings on the second admendmendment by the rich old dead white guys, its very clear their view on gun and firearm ownership

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really suprised that the SC Justices got it right. This is a big win for gun owners. I think some thanks also goes out to the NRA for all they have done to battle the anti's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really suprised that the SC Justices got it right. This is a big win for gun owners. I think some thanks also goes out to the NRA for all they have done to battle the anti's.

This is a big win for gun owners, their families, their neighbors, anyone who has chosen to get a carry permit-and those they may someday be saved by a permit holder...but bigger yet...it means that the constitution still matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is a good decision. I am also greatfull it was not one sided. It shows me they are giving it deep thought and that it is a serious subject.

Now what do with those people that go in a bar get drunk and decide he does not want leave when the establishment tells him to. Then he pulls that gun out, that he has a permit to carry.Or the college student. It has already happend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not bad Supreme Court, I'm actually beginning to put some faith in ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is illegal for a permit holder to carry a handgun at a BAC greater than .04. HALF the legal limit for driving.

So if they are drunk, and carrying their gun, they are already a law breaker, prior to pulling his gun out. It is also illegal to brandish a firearm unless there is a threat of great bodily harm or death. And it certainly isn't legal to shoot someone for asking you to leave a bar.

It can be "what-if'd" to death, but the fact of the matter is that out of ~54,000 permit holders in the last 5 years, you can count the number of issues on one hand. I'll take those odds anyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duck! grin

or pull out a bigger gun and do the clint eastwood line or that crocodile dundee line, 'thats not a gun...this is a gun."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I"ll do like Kidd says then if need be go to tacklejunkie sugestion or vise versa beware my eyes will be closed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer: Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

Who would of thought a conservative could actually make a good decision. grin

Hallelujah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
anyone who has chosen to get a carry permit-and those they may someday be saved by a permit holde

Or those that don't have a permit and perhaps save someone. Don't misunderstand me but there seems to be some misunderstanding that having a permit somehow makes someone extra special. All the permit does is afford the permit holder the priviledge of being able to carry his/her weapon on his/her person in public places that a non-permit holder may not be allowed to. That is all.

I am not a permit holder but I am still allowed to strap on my .44 and carry it in many of the same places. I am not allowed to carry it uncased in my auto or on my ATV whereas a permit holder is and there may be certain public places that I may also be restricted but oh well.

Granted, I haven't taken the time or spent the cash to obtain the permit....yet and if I do it will be because it will make it easier for me to carry my sidearm while hunting and using my ATV. I have no reason to carry it concealed and it would be quite clumsy to do so anyway with a 7-1/2" barrel.

Glad to hear the ruling by the highest court. It has now finally come to head and been decided. I think it would take a very liberal court to even hear a case to consider overturning the decision in the future.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody know where I can get the actual ruling transcript/document or whatever, that states the courts ruling?? I am having trouble finding it. all I can find is news stories with chopped up pieces. Is this the kind of thing that takes awhile to be published/released?? Im not sure how it works. I know it happend today, but I was hoping for instant gratification. Could someone clarify this for me??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've spent about the last hour or so reading through the opinion as issued by the court...very interesting...gotta go back to it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that two of the dissenters were republican George Bush nominees.

Let us not confuse the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0