Supreme Court could take guns case

[Saguaro]

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.

That could change in the next few months.

The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.

The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.

"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.

Tuesday announcement?
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

The Second Amendment reads: "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."

The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.

Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.

Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.

Four states _ Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York _ are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.

The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.

Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.

Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.

Dangerous D.C.
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.

He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.

The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.

Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.

Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.

"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.

Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738359/

[VRWC]

I hope they do take this case in order to clear up the Court's long history of ambiguity on the 2nd Amendment. Miller sidestepped the real issue behind the case and the 2nd Amendment in general. A little clarity on the issue would be nice, and of course, if they rule the way the Constitution reads, then it will come down on my side and I will be happy. Nothin wrong with a little selfishness is there?

[Wabash]

I hope they do take this case in order to clear up the Court's long history of ambiguity on the 2nd Amendment. Miller sidestepped the real issue behind the case and the 2nd Amendment in general. A little clarity on the issue would be nice, and of course, if they rule the way the Constitution reads, then it will come down on my side and I will be happy. Nothin wrong with a little selfishness is there?

But what if they don't rule in favor of gun owners? They will make felons out of millions of Americans overnight. Those folks aren't gonna bend over like the English and the Aussies and get cornholed!

I think they wil pass on it and let the States decide on an individual basis.

[VRWC]

But what if they don't rule in favor of gun owners? They will make felons out of millions of Americans overnight. Those folks aren't gonna bend over like the English and the Aussies and get cornholed!

I think they wil pass on it and let the States decide on an individual basis.

I can understand your concern, and as reckless as Justice Kennedy is, it scares the hell out of me if they take it too. I know we just can't assume that the Justices will do their job right, but they need to incorporate this Amendment, as they have done with almost all of the Bill of Rights.

Theres no doubt in my mind that the American people will not rollover and let the government steal their guns as their counterparts in England and Australia did.

Passing on it still won't clear up the issue as a whole. Letting the states decide is all well and good, until you are one who lives in a state that is still trying to further limit gun rights, like Illinois, where I live. The Chicago handgun ban is even more restrictive than the DC ban. (I do live downstate, 4 hours south of Chicago) But there are other states also that still do not allow law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon. Leaving it up to states, without a decision from the Court, still circumvents the Amendment and its purpose.

[Trueblue]

if they rule the way the Constitution reads

Like that's so easy to interpret. :lol

[Wabash]

Like that's so easy to interpret. :lol

I'm a lay person and I have no problem interpreting it!
The one glaring fact is that of the first 10 Amendments, the other 9 talk of Individual Rights and I ask, why would they not extend this principle to the 2nd as well as the other 9?

It is an individual Right, plain and simple!

[VRWC]

Like that's so easy to interpret. :lol

Actually if you read the Amendment, and then read other writings of Madison (the father of the 2nd Amendment) it is quite easy to read. You might like to try it.

[Wabash]

Actually if you read the Amendment, and then read other writings of Madison (the father of the 2nd Amendment) it is quite easy to read. You might like to try it.

That would be in opposition to her staunch liberal mindset...just like GW. :rofl:rofl

[Wabash]

I can understand your concern, and as reckless as Justice Kennedy is, it scares the hell out of me if they take it too. I know we just can't assume that the Justices will do their job right, but they need to incorporate this Amendment, as they have done with almost all of the Bill of Rights.

Theres no doubt in my mind that the American people will not rollover and let the government steal their guns as their counterparts in England and Australia did.

Passing on it still won't clear up the issue as a whole. Letting the states decide is all well and good, until you are one who lives in a state that is still trying to further limit gun rights, like Illinois, where I live. The Chicago handgun ban is even more restrictive than the DC ban. (I do live downstate, 4 hours south of Chicago) But there are other states also that still do not allow law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon. Leaving it up to states, without a decision from the Court, still circumvents the Amendment and its purpose.

Boy Howdy, there would be a lot of bloodshed if that happened, and the judges know it!

[Trueblue]

Actually if you read the Amendment, and then read other writings of Madison (the father of the 2nd Amendment) it is quite easy to read. You might like to try it.

I'm sure that you realize that the 2nd Amendment is not considered easy to read, and that's why there has been such debate over the years. The reality of this disagreement can't have escaped your notice.

[Wabash]

Update: This morning

The SC will hear the case!

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.

The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T1I6H80&show_article=1

[toxic]

Update: This morning

The SC will hear the case! ...

I suppose that means they aren't going to let the Circuit Court decision stand.

That in turn means they want to make it a Election Year issue and get the illogical response of those single issue voters.

[April15]

For what its worth I can't see the court giving carte blanch for all things hand held. They will have to put some kind of sensebility clause to there decision. Like rocket propelled grenades being restricted to military.

[toxic]

For what its worth I can't see the court giving carte blanch for all things hand held. They will have to put some kind of sensebility clause to there decision. Like rocket propelled grenades being restricted to military.

I guess I keep thinking about some economic problem where the rioting/looting exceeds the States's ability to contain.

Generally, I think the government likes loud, heavy, metal, short range weapons with the huge muzzle flash that the manufacturers have been cranking out. Perhaps these are easiest to detect and locate.

I don't know. It depends if they are preparing for an anticipated problem.

[Wabash]

I suppose that means they aren't going to let the Circuit Court decision stand.

That in turn means they want to make it a Election Year issue and get the illogical response of those single issue voters.

They can certainly uphold the Circuit court's decision, but they may not...only the Supreme's know for sure...now if they can just throw out Roe v. Wade ...I digress

For what its worth I can't see the court giving carte blanch for all things hand held. They will have to put some kind of sensebility clause to there decision. Like rocket propelled grenades being restricted to military.
Golly gee April, I like my arsenal...

I guess I keep thinking about some economic problem where the rioting/looting exceeds the States's ability to contain.

Generally, I think the government likes loud, heavy, metal, short range weapons with the huge muzzle flash that the manufacturers have been cranking out. Perhaps these are easiest to detect and locate.

I don't know. It depends if they are preparing for an anticipated problem.
That was a convoluted and ambiguous post if ever there was one........no offense..

[AYFR]

This is going to be a really big ruling with implications for years to come.

[MW]

I'm glad that SC is going to hear this . . . I think. I"m in a gun-friendly state already.

I'm wondering if the fact that DC isn't a state will affect this?

[AYFR]

Hmm good question.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I'm glad that SC is going to hear this . . . I think. I"m in a gun-friendly state already.

I'm wondering if the fact that DC isn't a state will affect this?That issue was raised in the dissent in the Cir. Court opinion and the SCOTUS could duck the issue based on that distinction.

It will be fun to see what the court rules and if I can finally get my TOW rocket launcher and some RPGs for the next fireworks display. If you buy the majority opinion, then you are allowed to own any weapon that can be used by a militia including SAM missiles, TOW launchers and RPGs. I am not sure if the SCOTUS wants everyone to have the right to their own RPGs with no state restrictions

[VRWC]

That issue was raised in the dissent in the Cir. Court opinion and the SCOTUS could duck the issue based on that distinction.

It will be fun to see what the court rules and if I can finally get my TOW rocket launcher and some RPGs for the next fireworks display. If you buy the majority opinion, then you are allowed to own any weapon that can be used by a militia including SAM missiles, TOW launchers and RPGs. I am not sure if the SCOTUS wants everyone to have the right to their own RPGs with no state restrictions

This coming from someone who obviously hasn't read the decision. There is no way, even a convoluted thinker like yourself, could gather that from the opinion.

[Yellowdogtexan]

This coming from someone who obviously hasn't read the decision. There is no way, even a convoluted thinker like yourself, could gather that from the opinion.I read the original Court of Appeals decision very carefully. The difference is that I understood what I read and you are a silly layperson who lacks the training to understand this decision.

The majority opinion equates the Second Amendment to the First Amendment and under that analysis, then any laws that restrict someone from owning RPGs, Stinger missiles and TOW rockets would be illegal. BTW, there was a great discussion of this on a legal blog for just lawyers and law professors where these lawyers and law professors were trying to figure out if under the broad construction by the majority opinion one could restrict the ownership of nuclear bombs.

The majority opinion was poorly written. The judge who wrote is a partisan hack who is not well respected outside of Federarlist Society circles.

[VRWC]

I read the original Court of Appeals decision very carefully. The difference is that I understood what I read and you are a silly layperson who lacks the training to understand this decision.

The majority opinion equates the Second Amendment to the First Amendment and under that analysis, then any laws that restrict someone from owning RPGs, Stinger missiles and TOW rockets would be illegal. BTW, there was a great discussion of this on a legal blog for just lawyers and law professors where these lawyers and law professors were trying to figure out if under the broad construction by the majority opinion one could restrict the ownership of nuclear bombs.

The majority opinion was poorly written. The judge who wrote is a partisan hack who is not well respected outside of Federarlist Society circles.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Which isn't unusual for you. The decision only does that in your warped view of reading it. Had you read it with a "legal" mind, which you claim to have, it would not have said that at all. But as usual you know everything and are right about everything, so it is of no use discussing a topic that is far above your head.

[VRWC]

The majority opinion equates the Second Amendment to the First Amendment and under that analysis, then any laws that restrict someone from owning RPGs, Stinger missiles and TOW rockets would be illegal. BTW, there was a great discussion of this on a legal blog for just lawyers and law professors where these lawyers and law professors were trying to figure out if under the broad construction by the majority opinion one could restrict the ownership of nuclear bombs.



How does someone that claims to be a lawyer come up with that argument? It is simple, you are a law school dropout who couldn't hack it.

Maybe, you got flunked out before the class on the First Amendment, but there are many, many restrictions on it. So how can you claim that with this decision that we can not restrict the Second? For someone who calls everyone an idiotic layperson, you might like to take a look in the mirror. Your "legal" arguments make you look like an even bigger idiot than your childish namecalling.

[toxic]

I read the original Court of Appeals decision very carefully. The difference is that I understood what I read and you are a silly layperson who lacks the training to understand this decision.

The majority opinion equates the Second Amendment to the First Amendment and under that analysis, then any laws that restrict someone from owning RPGs, Stinger missiles and TOW rockets would be illegal. BTW, there was a great discussion of this on a legal blog for just lawyers and law professors where these lawyers and law professors were trying to figure out if under the broad construction by the majority opinion one could restrict the ownership of nuclear bombs.

The majority opinion was poorly written. The judge who wrote is a partisan hack who is not well respected outside of Federarlist Society circles.

It has been a while since I read the decision/opinions. I recall the majority was very favorable to individual rights.

If this would reverse the many laws that have come into effect in the last several years, that might explain why the USSC would take the case.

Around 10 years ago, you could mail order binary explosives and have them shipped to your home. I have seen some advertisements even recently that surprised me. Of course, not all advertisements reflect legal products.

I think the uneventful result of these liberal gun/explosive laws seem to indicate to me that there is no substantial terrorist threat.

[Wabash]

How does someone that claims to be a lawyer come up with that argument? It is simple, you are a law school dropout who couldn't hack it.

Maybe, you got flunked out before the class on the First Amendment, but there are many, many restrictions on it. So how can you claim that with this decision that we can not restrict the Second? For someone who calls everyone an idiotic layperson, you might like to take a look in the mirror. Your "legal" arguments make you look like an even bigger idiot than your childish namecalling.
Outstanding post..I can't give ya points because I give you too many it says...But HEY! Great job in telling off the "idiot"!!!!!:paclap:paclap:paclap

It has been a while since I read the decision/opinions. I recall the majority was very favorable to individual rights.

If this would reverse the many laws that have come into effect in the last several years, that might explain why the USSC would take the case.

Around 10 years ago, you could mail order binary explosives and have them shipped to your home. I have seen some advertisements even recently that surprised me. Of course, not all advertisements reflect legal products.

I think the uneventful result of these liberal gun/explosive laws seem to indicate to me that there is no substantial terrorist threat.

Yes, you may have it!
Good thing I stocked up years ago with everything I could get.:wink

[Yellowdogtexan]

How does someone that claims to be a lawyer come up with that argument? It is simple, you are a law school dropout who couldn't hack it..Being an ignorant layperson, you are not qualified or equiped to read and understand this decision. The comment about RPGs, Stingers andnuclear weapons was not my concept and was from a legal blog that is far too advanced for a layperson like you to understand. If you want to waste your time on concepts that are way above your limited ability to understand, here is the link to the blog (which I had also posted on the prior thread on this board). http://volokh.com/posts/1173753555.shtml I am sympathetic to the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, not just a "right" limited to members of state-controlled "militias." The DC Circuit's recent decision in Parker increases the likelihood that that view will soon triumph in the Supreme Court. However, this possibility raises some important questions about the scope of the individual right in question. In particular, what kinds of "arms" do we have a right to bear?

As a textual matter, the "the right to keep and bear arms" seems to apply to all types of weapons, without exception. This approach, however, would give citizens the right to own powerful military weapons, perhaps even including nuclear bombs and other WMDs. One possible textual limitation is the idea that the right is limited to those that one person can "keep and bear," thereby excluding a great deal of heavy military equipment, such as tanks or artillery pieces. However, the right would still apply to such potent handheld arms as machine guns, RPGs, shoulder-launched surface to air missiles (e.g. - the Stinger SAM), and grenades. It is far from clear to me that largely unrestricted private ownership of such weapons is desirable.

Questions such as these are usually met with the response that the Second Amendment will still permit "reasonable" regulations. This, however, is far from satisfactory in light of the fact that people of differing ideologies have widely divergent conceptions of what counts as reasonable. Moreover, the implicit assumption that regulations banning private ownership of RPGs and Stingers are "reasonable" is in tension with the theory that the principal purpose of the Second Amendment is to give citizens the ability to use their weapons to resist a tyrannical government. This "insurrectionary theory" of the Second Amendment is arguably the most popular interpretation advanced by scholars sympathetic to individual rights view. Obviously, RPGs, handheld SAMs, and machine guns are likely to be far more effective in achieving this goal than mere handguns or hunting rifles. The insurrectionary theory of the Amendment is at odds with most arguments claiming that the Amendment only protects the right to own weapons that don't pose grave risks. After all, the most dangerous weapons are often the ones that can most effectively be utilized by a resistance movement opposing the government.

I come to improve the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, not to bury it. However, advocates of the theory will need to develop a more compelling account of the scope of the individual right in question. That need will be even more urgent if the Supreme Court embraces the individual right theory, as it may well soon do.This post mentions one of the arguments made to justify the individual right theory for the Second Amendment which is way too advanced of a concept to try to explain to a layperson.

Just because you are ignorant of the law, do not assume that I am. I have read and understood the Parker case and made you look a fool on the other thread on this decision on this board. Your analysis of the Miller case was really sad and would have gotten you flunked out of law school in your first week.

[VRWC]

My reading on the Miller and Parker decisions was right on par with that of Constitutional scholars around the country. I'm sorry you can not handle the fact that you are wrong.

By the way, thanks for the negative rep. I enjoy recieveing it from those I prove to be WRONG. It is kind of a trophy. You made yourself look like an idiot on the other thread, with your partisan hack reading of the Miller decision. Those that have a legal mind and ANY comprehension of the United States Constitution and the Supreme Court, know exactly how and why that decision was written. Had you read the decision, remember I posted it, you could plainly see Justice McReynolds' majority opinion expressly allowed limits on the types of weapons that could be owned, while expressly upholding individual gun owners rights. I can keep showing you how wrong you are, yet you keep ignoring all of the evidence I post, so again why argue with someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of the law?

[Wabash]

My reading on the Miller and Parker decisions was right on par with that of Constitutional scholars around the country. I'm sorry you can not handle the fact that you are wrong.

By the way, thanks for the negative rep. I enjoy recieveing it from those I prove to be WRONG. It is kind of a trophy. You made yourself look like an idiot on the other thread, with your partisan hack reading of the Miller decision. Those that have a legal mind and ANY comprehension of the United States Constitution and the Supreme Court, know exactly how and why that decision was written. Had you read the decision, remember I posted it, you could plainly see Justice McReynolds' majority opinion expressly allowed limits on the types of weapons that could be owned, while expressly upholding individual gun owners rights. I can keep showing you how wrong you are, yet you keep ignoring all of the evidence I post, so again why argue with someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of the law?

Haaaaaaaaa! The perfect ASSHOLE gave you negative rep too??

Too funny! He loves doing that...Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely and dog is a Prime example!

[Trueblue]

YDT has absolute power?

[Wabash]

YDT has absolute power?

Only in his arrogant mind!:rofl:rofl

All he's really doing is...:ydt to himself!

[Wabash]

Here's dog now.......smile dog!

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x77/watermelon039/GreekvsMuslim.jpg

[Trueblue]

Not cool at all, Wabash.

[Wabash]

Not cool at all, Wabash.

Tough shit...he asks for it!...Daily!
I don't disrespect anyone here, unless they disrespect me first.....multiple disrespects piss me off!

[VRWC]

Now Wabash Dogs a member of the ACLU and they are gonna hunt you down. You've just offended Muslims, gays, and Dog. Now you're in TROUBLE!!:wink:wink:lol

[Wabash]

Now Wabash Dogs a member of the ACLU and they are gonna hunt you down. You've just offended Muslims, gays, and Dog. Now you're in TROUBLE!!:wink:wink:lol

Oh ya...I'm skeeered! All those scum suckers offendeed me first and have been for years!

[Trueblue]

Tough shit...he asks for it!...Daily!
I don't disrespect anyone here, unless they disrespect me first.....multiple disrespects piss me off!

Most of us tell each other that "you don't know what you're talking about", you and me included. You ought to be big enough to deal with it.

But that picture, that kind of disrespect crosses the line, and it's why I never have given you any sort of good rep or positive feedback on anything you say. I remember how really low you will go.

[VRWC]

To get back on topic........

Here is Dog's negative rep to me....

Read the decision. The partisan who wrote the majority does indeed put the Second Amendment on the same level as the first amendment which would indeed give rise to issues like individual ownership of RPG and Stinger missiles.

So I have to ask. Didn't the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment on the same level as the First? Call me crazy, but I do believe they put it in the Bill of Rights.

Which begs the question....If we, by which I mean Congress and SCOTUS, put restrictions on the First Amendment, but it's original intent still remains largely intact, then why can we not do the same on the 2nd Amendment?

Of course, Dog will never admit that I am right on this, but it is so much fun proving him wrong.:LoneLaugher

[Wabash]

Most of us tell each other that "you don't know what you're talking about", you and me included. You ought to be big enough to deal with it.

But that picture, that kind of disrespect crosses the line, and it's why I never have given you any sort of good rep or positive feedback on anything you say. I remember how really low you will go.

Hell, THAT was mild for me TB! I could care less if you give me anything and we all know how much respect you get on other forums don't we?

To get back on topic........

Here is Dog's negative rep to me....

Read the decision. The partisan who wrote the majority does indeed put the Second Amendment on the same level as the first amendment which would indeed give rise to issues like individual ownership of RPG and Stinger missiles.

So I have to ask. Didn't the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment on the same level as the First? Call me crazy, but I do believe they put it in the Bill of Rights.

Which begs the question....If we, by which I mean Congress and SCOTUS, put restrictions on the First Amendment, but it's original intent still remains largely intact, then why can we not do the same on the 2nd Amendment?

Of course, Dog will never admit that I am right on this, but it is so much fun proving him wrong.:LoneLaugher

You do it with such ease too!:thumbsup
Like I have said before, the other 9 of the first 10 Amendments talk about individual rights, why wouldn't the 2nd?

[Trueblue]

Hell, THAT was mild for me TB! I could care less if you give me anything and we all know how much respect you get on other forums don't we?

Whether or not it is mild for you is not the issue. I get respect from those whom I respect. That's all that matters to me. :)

You do it with such ease too!:thumbsup
Like I have said before, the other 9 of the first 10 Amendments talk about individual rights, why wouldn't the 2nd?

An interesting argument, but it doesn't completely make the case, IMO.

[AYFR]

TB who made up the militias?

Who kept the guns for those militias?

Answer individuals.

[Trueblue]

TB who made up the militias?

Who kept the guns for those militias?

Answer individuals.

It's a different day.

[Trueblue]

People do seem to believe that the 2nd Amendment means that they can own just about anything. Washington DC is a mess of a crime ridden city, and the people in charge of local government thought this might help. I can see their reasoning, even if the NRA cannot.

[Wabash]

People do seem to believe that the 2nd Amendment means that they can own just about anything. Washington DC is a mess of a crime ridden city, and the people in charge of local government thought this might help. I can see their reasoning, even if the NRA cannot.

So you leave all the rest of the law abiding citizens defenseless? That's what they are doing! That's what SF is doing!

[Lone Laugher]

I have just spent a few minutes reading this thread. I am impressed by the level of discussion between Clholoway and YDT ( save for the needless digs regarding intelligence level ).

I found the debate between the two very interesting. And then, there is Wabadabadoo chiming in. Like a chubby bald toddler making a racket as a pair of adults try to have a real conversation.

[MW]

Give me a cite for the case we're discussing, not a blog.

[Wabash]

I have just spent a few minutes reading this thread. I am impressed by the level of discussion between Clholoway and YDT ( save for the needless digs regarding intelligence level ).

I found the debate between the two very interesting. And then, there is Wabadabadoo chiming in. Like a chubby bald toddler making a racket as a pair of adults try to have a real conversation.

What a Complete and Total ASS you are!!

Ya, I'm watching you LL, just like a turd in the toilet!:magnify

[Lone Laugher]

:LoneLaugher

[AYFR]

It's a different day.

Same Constitution.

[Wabash]

:LoneLaugher

No cookies for you tonight...Go to your room!:wabash

[Lone Laugher]

Hey Wabsy...if ya like watching turds, this site is just for you!

WARNING: NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH OR THOSE WITH WEAK CONSTITUTIONS


http://www.ratemypoo.com/


:LoneLaugher

[Wabash]

Hey Wabsy...if ya like watching turds, this site is just for you!

WARNING: NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH OR THOSE WITH WEAK CONSTITUTIONS


http://www.ratemypoo.com/


:LoneLaugher

I'm not even gonna bother looking, besides, we all have you to observe!
Why don't you post something credible or go masturbate somewhere, probably an expert at it!

[MW]

Either back on topic . . . Or I start handing out negative reps . . . or worse . . . :waiting

Now, someone want to put up a cite - or are you afraid of having an active legal mind in this discussion to take away from the armchair lawyers?

[Lone Laugher]

Who me? Post something "credible"? Nah....I leave that stuff up to you.

Regarding masturbation....you are right...do it often. Doesn't everyone?

[Trueblue]

Same Constitution.

Different arms.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Maybe, you got flunked out before the class on the First Amendment, but there are many, many restrictions on it. Actually, I am Am Jured the First Amendment class (for silly laypersons who could never get into law school, that means I had the high grade in the class and got a volume of American Jurisprudence plus some cash from the law school). In any event, I am a lawyer and you are clearly not.

There are reasons why it is illegal for laypersons to practice law and your silly and WRONG statement about the First Amendment is a classic example of what happens when a layperson tries to discuss legal issues. Your statement about the First Amendment was just plain silly and wrong (if I was mean, I could submit it to one of the humor sections of a bar journal-lawyers love to laugh at the amusing attempts of laypeople to practice law).

The rights under the First Amendment are what are considered under constitutional law as fundamental rights and it takes a compelling state interest to restrict a fundamental right and any restrictions on a fundamental right are examined under what is called the strict scrutiny standard. Both of these requirements actually make it very difficult to regulate fundamental rights like voting and First Amendment rights.

If you applied the compelling state interest test and the strict scrutiny test to an individual right under the Second Amendment, then as the law professor who was cited in the blog that I posted noted, it would be legal for any one to own RPGs, TOW rockets, Stinger missiles and the like. The blog entry by the law professor on that legal blog generated 170+ responses (some of which were very interesting). If the Second Amendment was treated on par with the First Amendment, then any weapon that you can bear such as RPGs, TOW rockets, Stinger missiles and the like would be permitted but nuclear warheads could be prohibited unless you could show that one could carry such weapon.

One of the leading propenents of an individual right under the Second Amendment is convinced that the SCOTUS will not accord fundament right treatment to the Second Amendment and will approve a very limited right that is subject to ordinary regulation that will not be subject to the strict scutiny test. The SCOTUS is not going to adopt an individual right test that would invalid all or most forms of gun control in an election year.

The idiot partisan hack who wrote the majority opinon in the Parker case was clear that the Second Amendment was on a par with the First Amendment and any restrictions would have to meet the same standards as the restictions on the First Amendment. Go re-read the Parker case if you want but you will find that I am right.

[Yellowdogtexan]

So I have to ask. Didn't the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment on the same level as the First? Call me crazy, but I do believe they put it in the Bill of Rights. Actually your are again so very wrong that your statements should be submitted to the humor section of a bar journal. The Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and in fact the courts have refused to apply the Second Amendment to the States. The original bill of rights only applied to the Federal Government and did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was passed. The courts have specifically incorporated specific protections in the bill of rights as being applicable to the States. One of these key rights that has been incorporated or made applicable to the states was the First Amendment.

Several courts have specifically held that the Second Amendment has not been incorporated or made applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment because the Second Amendment is not on the same level as the First Amendment. The only cases on the Second Amendment are all federal cases dealing with Federal law. For example there is a silly Fifth Cir. case where the court held that a federal law that makes it illegal for any husband in the process of getting a divorce in Texas to carry a gun while visiting his soon to be former spouse was enforceable and valid under the Second Amendment (despite the fact that the Fifth Cir. purported to find an individual right under the Second Amendment). Since the District of Columbia is not a state, the Second Amendment applies.

One of the issues that may not be briefed in the Parker case is whether the Second Amendment should be made applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment (the SCOTUS has not asked for briefing on this issue from what I can tell).

In any event, the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and numerous courts have specifically held that the Second Amendment is not applicable to the States (the legal term is incorprate) under the 14th Amendment because the Second Amendment is not as important or on the same plane as the First Amendment.

[Wabash]

Yet, all 10 Amendments deal with an individual's rights. It would appear to me, that each one of them is just as important as the other. The First being the most important, the Second as important as the First. Without the Second, there would be NO First, words alone wil not protect your butt in an uncivilized areana.

I believe that to be the intent of the Founders, as this nation has endured chaos many times, so they put in the 2nd to safeguard the citizens from a tyrannical govt. when mere words are insignificant!

[Wabash]

As for the gun ban in DC...it's been 30 years and it is one of the most crime ridden cities in the country. The law may have saved some lives but endangered and caused the deaths of those that couldn't protect themselves. Overall, I think the law, like many others is not worth the paper it's printed on. It penalizes the law abiding citizens!
The court that overturned the law, did the right thing. I applaud them and I hope the Supreme's support the lower court!

[AYFR]

Still SAME Constitution.

Are you suggesting that the USC should "change" with the times?

[Trueblue]

I believe in that living document thang. If you read the founders, they did, too.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Yet, all 10 Amendments deal with an individual's rights. It would appear to me, that each one of them is just as important as the other.It is fortuante for the world that your opinion (and the opiinions of other poorly informed lay persons) does not count in this area. The Courts have all ruled that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right that applies to the states under the 14th Amendment. All of the rights under the First Amendment and most of the rights under other amendments have been judged by the courts to be important rights that have incorporated into the 14th Amendment and made applicable to the states. Technically this issue is not even before the SCOTUS because the District of Columbia is not a state.

[Wabash]

Still SAME Constitution.

Are you suggesting that the USC should "change" with the times?
Not me...

I believe in that living document thang. If you read the founders, they did, too.
Bullshit! They did NO such thing!

It is fortuante for the world that your opinion (and the opiinions of other poorly informed lay persons) does not count in this area. The Courts have all ruled that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right that applies to the states under the 14th Amendment. All of the rights under the First Amendment and most of the rights under other amendments have been judged by the courts to be important rights that have incorporated into the 14th Amendment and made applicable to the states. Technically this issue is not even before the SCOTUS because the District of Columbia is not a state.
I repeat, without the 2nd, there would be NO First or any other. The founding Fathers included the Second Amendment so that citizens could defend themselves from a tyrannical govt. The entire Bill of Rights is designed to protect us from said govt. The 2nd is the Enforcement Arm of those rights.
You take away peoples ability to defend themselves and the govt. and Socialist ACLU types and other unscrupulous scum will run rough shod over the citizens, just like they do with Christianity! :mad
Some folks will be ducking for cover when the rioting starts in this country...it's a comin!

[Yellowdogtexan]

And I repeat, I am glad that your opinion is meaningless. The Courts have incorporated the First Amendment under the 14th Amendment as being applicable to the states because the First Amendment protects fundamental rights and the Courts have refused to incorporate the second amendment because it is not a fundamental right. Even the idiot who wrote the majority opinion in the Parker case has stated that the Second Amendment has not been incorporated under the 14th Amendment and does not apply to the states.

The insurrectionist theory is pure bull shit in my opinion in that this theory is based on the concept that the Second Amendment somehow deleted the concept of treason as defined in the Constitution. Under wabby's theory, one is allowed to bear and keep arms in order to use such weapons against the government if they feel like it. Treason is specifically defined in Article III section 3 of the Constitution to include going to war against the United States. Under Wabby's amusing intrepretation, Article III Section 3 of the constitution has either been abolished or redefined that it is okay to go to war against the federal governement so long as you are using a gun to do so. One does not amend another provision of the constitution by implication and this intrepretation is simply against the expressed words of the constitution.

Wabby and the nut case/freepers may not like the fact that it is and has been illegal to levy war against the US and the Second Amendment is not a grant of the right to do so.

The claim that the Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment is just plain stupid.

[VRWC]

You finally get to my point. Incorporation. I was wondering if you were ever going to catch up. It is required of the SCOTUS to incorporate the 2nd Amendment.

It is funny that you keep refering to me being a layperson, but can not give a rebuttal to my arguments. Someone as childish as you, it is to be expected. My arguments are the same of those that wrote the Constitution, namely the Bill of Rights. Madison, and the like, you remember, those people you learned about in school? I'm sure, with your warped reading of the Amendments and the Constitution itself, those people are of no bearing in the argument. As I've said before, it is of no use having this argument with you because you simply can not give a rebuttal to an argument. You rely soley on namecalling and sarcasim. Which is to be expected from someone who could not hack it in law school.

[VRWC]

The claim that the Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment is just plain stupid.

So you disagree with the Founding Fathers?

See, ther are some people in this country that do not believe the SCOTUS is God. Evidently you believe everything they do is correct, which is common among bleeding heart liberals with low self esteem. If you can not win your arguments or pass your laws through the legislative process, you simply get a number of men and women to decree it from one bench or another.

As I keep saying, how one makes the argument that the 2nd Amendment isn't as important as the 1st is ridiculous. Evidently, the Founding Fathers seemed to disagree with that view. Or maybe they didn't really mean to put it in the Bill of Rights....you are right, it was probably just a mistake that they put it in there.

[Yellowdogtexan]

It is very clear that clholloway20 is a layperson and has no idea about the law. The claim that the Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment is just plain silly and is WRONG. All of the rights under the First Amendment have been incorporated and made applicable to the states because these rights are fundamental rights. The Second Amendment has not been made applicable to the States because it is not an important amendment and it is not clear if there is an individual right under this amenmdent. Even the strongest 2nd Amendment advocates are predicting that if the SCOTUS finds that there is an individual right, such right will be chararcterized as a weak right that most if not all existing gun control laws will be found to be constitutional under this weak right.

This is the position taken by the Fifth Cir. where the court found that it was okay for the Federal government to tell all husbands getting a divorce in Texas that these husbands can not carry when meeting their wives during the pendancy of the divorce when standard temporary orders are in place. Dr. Billy Joe Emerson went to jail because he was found to have violated a federal law during his divorce and the Fifth Cir. affirmed that conviction holding that any individual right under the 2nd Amendment was a weak right and it was okay to have such a broad restriction as prohibiting a husband for having a gun in his possession (even if he has a carry permit) while visiting his wife if standard Texas divorce orders are in place. Dr. Billy Joe must have had a fun time with his lawyers who told him that he won a great victory for the 2nd Amendment but was going to go to jail anyway.

Again I doubt that the SCOTUS will do anything as silly as claim that the 2nd amendment is on a par with First Amendment because that would open up the claims that it is okay to own TOW rockets, stinger missiles and RPGs by private citizens.

BTW, I note with great amusement that our silly layperson dropped his stupid claims about this argument once he saw that law professors and others had ove 170 comments on the blog discussing this aspect of ruling that there is an individual right under the 2nd Amendment. Only an idiot such as the author of the majority opinion in the DC Circuit case would make such a statement.

On the incorporation issue, the SCOTUS could discuss incorporation but any ruling on this issue would be dicta because the issue in not before the SCOTUS. The District of Columbia is not a state and so the incorporation issue is not before the SCOTUS and from what I have seen of the briefing, the SCOTUS has not asked for any briefing on this issue. I have explained dicta before and I wonder if the silly layperson remembers what this legal term means.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I checked the order granting cert and it is clear that at this time, the issue of incorporation is not before the SCOTUS. Here is the order and some analysis on this issue. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-agrees-to-rule-on-gun-case/Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

The Court did not mention any other issues that it might address as questions of its jurisdiction to reach the ultimate question: did the one individual who was found to have a right to sue — Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. resident — have a right to challenge all three of the sections of the local law cited in the Court’s order, and, is the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave, even covered by the Second Amendment. While neither of those issues is posed in the grant order, the Court may have to be satisfied that the answer to both is affirmative before it would move on to the substantive question about the scope of any right protected by the Amendment.

The D.C. Circuit ruled that the Amendment does apply to the District because of its federal status, subject to all provisions of the Constitution. At this point, therefore, it appears that the Court’s review may not reach a major question — does the Second Amendment also protect individual rights against state and local government gun control laws? But a ruling by the Court recognizing an individual right to have a gun almost surely would lead to new test cases on whether to extend the Amendment’s guarantee so that it applied to state and local laws, too. The Court last confronted that issue in Presser v. illinois, in 1886, finding that the Amendment was not binding on the states.

[vsw]

In any event, I am a lawyer and you are clearly not.

BFD!

I can easily see you have the maturity of someone holding a J.D.

This is a discussion board, get over yourself.

[Wabash]

BFD!

I can easily see you have the maturity of someone holding a J.D.

This is a discussion board, get over yourself.

Good call vsw...you recognize Socialist bastards when you see em...
I'm no longer reading his long winded dissertations of bullshit..

[Kurtz]

:rofl

My oh my, looks like everyone has a li'l passion in 'em. :lol

[AYFR]

I believe in that living document thang. If you read the founders, they did, too.
I don't, but since you do then you should have no problem with the Patriot Act then.

You say your rights are violated by the warrantless wire tapping and other things in the Patriot act but you have no problem taking away the rights of people to bear arms.

[Trueblue]

Not me...


Bullshit! They did NO such thing!

They did, thus the elastic clause.


I repeat, without the 2nd, there would be NO First or any other.

I completely disagree. There are many countries with plenty of guns, but little free speech. An example is Afghanistan. The freedom in countries like England and Australia where there are few guns and much free speech far exceeds the freedom in Afghanistan.

You tell me which you like better, Afghanistan or the UK. A serious question. Please don't duck it. Consider what I'm saying.

The founding Fathers included the Second Amendment so that citizens could defend themselves from a tyrannical govt. The entire Bill of Rights is designed to protect us from said govt. The 2nd is the Enforcement Arm of those rights.

A well stated point, but I continue to point out that this does not necessarily entitle every citizen to own any kind of arms.

You take away peoples ability to defend themselves and the govt. and Socialist ACLU types and other unscrupulous scum will run rough shod over the citizens, just like they do with Christianity! :mad
Some folks will be ducking for cover when the rioting starts in this country...it's a comin!

It hasn't happened in the UK, Australia, or the Scandinavian countries, so I don't see how you can claim this.

I don't, but since you do then you should have no problem with the Patriot Act then.

You draw a completely false conclusion. You cannot claim that because I believe that the founders gave the USC elasticity, I would be in favor of warrantless wiretapping and other provisions of the PA.

You say your rights are violated by the warrantless wire tapping and other things in the Patriot act but you have no problem taking away the rights of people to bear arms.

They are violated by warrantless wiretapping. What I have a problem with is government having no power to regulate weapons in any way. That is simply unfeasible for a safe society.

I don't appreciate your taking what I say to such an unwarranted conclusion.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Good call vsw...you recognize Socialist bastards when you see em...
I'm no longer reading his long winded dissertations of bullshit..Mainly because there are too many words that you do not understand. How is the weather in your alternative reality today?:LoneLaugher

[toxic]

...
I repeat, without the 2nd, there would be NO First or any other. The founding Fathers included the Second Amendment so that citizens could defend themselves from a tyrannical govt. The entire Bill of Rights is designed to protect us from said govt. The 2nd is the Enforcement Arm of those rights.
You take away peoples ability to defend themselves and the govt. and Socialist ACLU types and other unscrupulous scum will run rough shod over the citizens, just like they do with Christianity! :mad
Some folks will be ducking for cover when the rioting starts in this country...it's a comin!

Wabby, I think you are going about this all wrong.

1) While I agree with the 2nd Amend intent, don't talk to people here about rebelling against the government, it spooks them and probably will never happen. I think the 2nd Amend was intended to spook the government.

2) When you talk about 2nd Amend rights, note that people that carry handguns have many requirements imposed on them, like:
- never had a felony,
- no misdemeanor in 10 years,
- no domestic violence history,
- no mental problems history,
- no financial problems,
- no pending criminal charges or arrests,
- law training classes,
- training for defusing tense situations,
- training for avoidance of escalating arguments,
- psychological profiling of others,
- pistol range qualification (shooting) tests under stress conditions,
- written tests,
- requalification every few years,
- to actually pass these tests, the license holder must review the law periodically and train with his weapon regularly,

I'm sure I've missed some points and the specifics vary from state to state.

I think the above requirements have been quite successful in assuring that very few "flakes" get licensed.


BTW, Avoid making casual references to shooting people, having explosives, etc. Some people take you seriously.

[Wabash]

Wabby, I think you are going about this all wrong.

1) While I agree with the 2nd Amend intent, don't talk to people here about rebelling against the government, it spooks them and probably will never happen. I think the 2nd Amend was intended to spook the government.

2) When you talk about 2nd Amend rights, note that people that carry handguns have many requirements imposed on them, like:
- never had a felony,
- no misdemeanor in 10 years,
- no domestic violence history,
- no mental problems history,
- no financial problems,
- no pending criminal charges or arrests,
- law training classes,
- training for defusing tense situations,
- training for avoidance of escalating arguments,
- psychological profiling of others,
- pistol range qualification (shooting) tests under stress conditions,
- written tests,
- requalification every few years,
- to actually pass these tests, the license holder must review the law periodically and train with his weapon regularly,

I'm sure I've missed some points and the specifics vary from state to state.

I think the above requirements have been quite successful in assuring that very few "flakes" get licensed.


BTW, Avoid making casual references to shooting people, having explosives, etc. Some people take you seriously.

Wow! I don't know where you are from, but Oregon has only about 2/3 of those restrictions.

You have to take a class here to have a concealed carry license...but all that the law requires is "some instruction is necessary"...of course they want it taught by a credentialed person like myself, but the state does not specify What is taught.
If you are a citizen in good standing here, you can carry a gun in "plain sight" on your person or in your vehicle w/o a permit.
You can also go onto any shcoll campus if you have a permit.
NONE of these are required:
- training for defusing tense situations,
- training for avoidance of escalating arguments,
- psychological profiling of others,
- pistol range qualification (shooting) tests under stress conditions,
- written tests,
- requalification every few years,
- to actually pass these tests, the license holder must review the law periodically and train with his weapon regularly,

The laws vary a LOT from state to state!

Casual referrences? Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[Wabash]

Mr. toxic....you may already know this, but for those that shoot black powder pistols and rifles....requires a quantity of black powder(an explosive). Black powder instruments are not considered firearms under the law. As opposed to smokeless powder used in other types of firearms.

I'm not sure of what is being sold currently, but about 25 years ago and further back, one could buy thru Shotgun News and other sources many different types of weapons.

[toxic]

Wow! I don't know where you are from, but Oregon has only about 2/3 of those restrictions.

You have to take a class here to have a concealed carry license...but all that the law requires is "some instruction is necessary"...of course they want it taught by a credentialed person like myself, but the state does not specify What is taught.
If you are a citizen in good standing here, you can carry a gun in "plain sight" on your person or in your vehicle w/o a permit.
You can also go onto any shcoll campus if you have a permit.
NONE of these are required:
- training for defusing tense situations,
- training for avoidance of escalating arguments,
- psychological profiling of others,
- pistol range qualification (shooting) tests under stress conditions,
- written tests,
- requalification every few years,
- to actually pass these tests, the license holder must review the law periodically and train with his weapon regularly,

The laws vary a LOT from state to state!

Casual referrences? Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

I think you are providing justification for those that oppose your thinking.

In Texas, wearing a weapon exposed is called "brandishing a weapon" and is illegal.

In Texas, they perceive an exposed weapon as a threatening gesture. In your state (and Calif when I was there), an exposed weapon is considered an indication that you are not trying to hide anything. Just different philsophies.

In Texas, the instructors have to take about 40-80 hours of training from the state. They in turn relay that info to their students.

If you would like to teach your students how to defuse tense situations and de-escalate violence, I could post some of the viewgraphs from past training courses.

For range testing, we fire 50 rounds and I think we have to score 200 out of 250 at ranges of 15-50 ft. It is not hard to score 250. The test period is short, so you are always shooting or reloading. I typically have only a couple seconds after reloading to rest and a couple seconds after firing to rest. Each firing is between 3 and 6 rounds. You must decock at the begining of fire and often there are sequences where you fire 2-3 rounds - stop - decock - restart, etc. You are required to clear jams in that alloted shooting time. No make-up in the next burst. Any rounds you miss firing are subtracted from your score.

There is a (sub)instructor for every 4-5 students and they are sticklers for you listening (while ear protection is on) and following instructions exactly. You get instructions before each burst. Also, the subgroub instructor comes and bullshits with you while you are trying to quickly reload to see if you can multitask, prioritize and not panic. As you can imagine, some people drop bullets on the floor, freeze-up, turn around with gun, forget to decock/safety, etc. Some are obvious and immediate disqualifiers.

I would estimate 1-2 out of 5 fails the range test. You get one range retest to pass. If you fail that, you have pay for another course and retake the classroom training and written tests again.

[Wabash]

I think you are providing justification for those that oppose your thinking.

In Texas, wearing a weapon exposed is called "brandishing a weapon" and is illegal.

In Texas, they perceive an exposed weapon as a threatening gesture. In your state (and Calif when I was there), an exposed weapon is considered an indication that you are not trying to hide anything. Just different philsophies.

In Texas, the instructors have to take about 40-80 hours of training from the state. They in turn relay that info to their students.

If you would like to teach your students how to defuse tense situations and de-escalate violence, I could post some of the viewgraphs from past training courses.

For range testing, we fire 50 rounds and I think we have to score 200 out of 250 at ranges of 15-50 ft. It is not hard to score 250. The test period is short, so you are always shooting or reloading. I typically have only a couple seconds after reloading to rest and a couple seconds after firing to rest. Each firing is between 3 and 6 rounds. You must decock at the begining of fire and often there are sequences where you fire 2-3 rounds - stop - decock - restart, etc. You are required to clear jams in that alloted shooting time. No make-up in the next burst. Any rounds you miss firing are subtracted from your score.

There is a (sub)instructor for every 4-5 students and they are sticklers for you listening (while ear protection is on) and following instructions exactly. You get instructions before each burst. Also, the subgroub instructor comes and bullshits with you while you are trying to quickly reload to see if you can multitask, prioritize and not panic. As you can imagine, some people drop bullets on the floor, freeze-up, turn around with gun, forget to decock/safety, etc. Some are obvious and immediate disqualifiers.

I would estimate 1-2 out of 5 fails the range test. You get one range retest to pass. If you fail that, you have pay for another course and retake the classroom training and written tests again.

Sounds like a good course...
Brandishing a weapon here would be showing it in a threatening manner. Weapons in holsters in plain view or on the front seat or dash board of a vehicle are perfectly legal.
What good is it to you if you can't retrieve it quickly?
I have well over 100 hours training from the FBI, the State of Ca. and the State of Oregon, ...been instructing for 33 years and I'm a past Grand Master in Police competition, both revolver and auto.

[Wabash]

I do teach most of what you said in my advanced combat type courses, but it is not required for the basic here...

[Wabash]

I do teach most of what you said in my advanced combat type courses, but it is not required for the basic here...one guy in the county sits the class down for a 4 hour, boring Q&A session and certifies them....others do the same around the state...I require that they shoot with both hands and are able to retain their weapon if atacked....10 yds and less..right up to an arms length from the target. It's a short, but very comprehensive course!

Sorry door bell rang while I was typing...neighbor brought us over some sweet potato pie..

[AYFR]

You draw a completely false conclusion. You cannot claim that because I believe that the founders gave the USC elasticity, I would be in favor of warrantless wiretapping and other provisions of the PA.

No I am not. If the USC is a living breathing changing document then the warrantless wire-tapping was just another change.

They are violated by warrantless wiretapping. What I have a problem with is government having no power to regulate weapons in any way. That is simply unfeasible for a safe society.
First no they are not. There is not a person listening to your phone calls. There is a computer listing for "key" words. See the same arguement can be made that you can not have a safe society without the monitoring of its people. Several attacks have been sucessfully stopped by that wire-tapping

I don't appreciate your taking what I say to such an unwarranted conclusion.
It wasn't an unwarranted conclusion. Also I don't appreciate you saying tha tit is OK to violate MY right to protect MY family through the Second Admentment.

Do you really think that at this point in America that bannning guns will stop the criminals from getting them?

BTW the banning of guns will happen if they (SCOTUS) rule that the second is a collective right and not an individual right.

[Trueblue]

No I am not. If the USC is a living breathing changing document then the warrantless wire-tapping was just another change.

Yes, you are. You misunderstand the meaning of a living document.


First no they are not. There is not a person listening to your phone calls. There is a computer listing for "key" words. See the same arguement can be made that you can not have a safe society without the monitoring of its people. Several attacks have been sucessfully stopped by that wire-tapping


Rev, the issue is not the wiretapping, it's the warrentless wiretapping.

It wasn't an unwarranted conclusion. Also I don't appreciate you saying tha tit is OK to violate MY right to protect MY family through the Second Admentment.

Well, yeah it was an unwarranted conclusion.

Also, you can protect your family without guns being unrestricted in America.

Do you really think that at this point in America that bannning guns will stop the criminals from getting them?

BTW the banning of guns will happen if they (SCOTUS) rule that the second is a collective right and not an individual right.

I think that laws regulating gun ownership help our society.

I thought that they already had ruled it was such a right, actually.

The issue is whether or not communities can have any sorts of gun regulations at all, isn't it?

[Trueblue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

Other Founding Fathers cited the need to interpret the Constitution in light of changing circumcstances. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." [11]

This is also why Living Constitutionists often claim the truly originalist view; e.g., one that interprets the Constitution as it was originally intended to be interpreted.[12]

[AYFR]

Yes, you are. You misunderstand the meaning of a living document.
No I do not You just want it to be flexible when it suits you and not any other time.



Rev, the issue is not the wiretapping, it's the warrentless wiretapping.
Semetics here. If warrentless wire-tapping is unconstitutional by violating your freedom of privacy why is whiretapping with the consent of the government any less of an intrusion?



Well, yeah it was an unwarranted conclusion.

Also, you can protect your family without guns being unrestricted in America.
No it is not.

Yep sure, goinging to pull a knife to protect my family from a criminal wielding a GUN. Oh wait knives will probably be banned as well.



I think that laws regulating gun ownership help our society.

That is not what is at stake here. I am in favor of the current gun laws we have.

I thought that they already had ruled it was such a right, actually.Nope SCOTUS has dodged this issue.

The issue is whether or not communities can have any sorts of gun regulations at all, isn't it?

Sorry but wrong. The issue is the banning of guns. DC has a gun ban not just regulations, if it were just regulation and restrictions this would not be going to the SCOTUS.

[AYFR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

That is why they put the power to amend it; not that it was a living breathing changing document.


The Living Constitution

by David Dieteman
One of the most nefarious influences in the minds of Americans is the notion that the federal constitution of 1787 (the "U.S. Constitution") is a "living" document.

What exactly does this mean?

It is supposed to mean that, rather than having the meaning of the words on the paper, the federal constitution means whatever it ought to mean at a given time. It necessarily follows from this that it will not mean the same thing at different times.

Thus, despite the fact that the Fifth Amendment states that "No man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," the United States Supreme Court once found it "unconstitutional" for states to have capital punishment. It is beyond rational dispute that a document which states that a man may be "deprived of life" following the "due process of law" does not itself outlaw executions. Yet the Supreme Court thought so.

The reason for this is that a "living" constitution is no constitution at all – it is in fact nothing. Imagine for a moment that the speed limit was a "living" speed limit. Rather than be bound by the posted 65 (in Pennsylvania) or 70 (in Michigan), you could tell the officer who pulls you over that the traffic law is "a living thing," and that for your high-performance car, on this flat, straight, dry road, such a law drawn up by dead white males (who probably smoked tobacco and were heterosexuals, and were at least related by skin color to persons who might have owned slaves) can have no application to you.

Imagine that the laws against rape are "living," and this game is no longer funny.

I do not contend that it is the role of citizens to sheepishly slave under whatever tyrannical dictates are handed down from above. A sustained gripe campaign ultimately ended Richard Nixon's "gas-saving" 55 mile per hour speed limit (yes, it was originally enacted in response to an "energy crisis," but hung on so long in part because of "safety" concerns).

It is of the utmost importance, however, for citizens of a republic such as the United States, and for citizens of the states and cities, to realize that when you do not like the law, the way to change it is not to pretend that it is not the law.

The concept of a constitution is of a document (or a group of unwritten concepts and some written documents, as in the English constitution) which serves as a skeletal structure for the body politic. Rather than being a functional law which sets the speed limit, for example, a constitution sets the shape of the regime which will then make the laws which help us get through everyday life. (Stop laughing – that is the theory. Anarcho-capitalism, i.e. a purely private social order, is the subject of another essay.)

The trouble in the United States is that certain Americans, in their super-hero like zeal to "make things right," lost patience with the law. They chose to operate outside the legal process "to get results." Guess what: your mother was right. This choice has consequences.

Whereas American law in the 1950s and early 1960s may have been too slow to adapt to social changes, the pendulum has now swung fully to the other side. Today, no change can come fast enough, and the notion that the law presents any real limits on political action is nearly lost.

One notable example of American disrespect for the law is the Clinton administration's response to court rulings over the powers of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – HUD, for short. After HUD overstepped its bounds, a federal district judge issued a ruling to that effect. In reply, the Clinton administration instructed the regional HUD offices to ignore opinions of U.S. Circuit Courts – the federal appeals courts which are one step below the Supreme Court. The HUD offices were told only to abide by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

This course of action shows a complete lack of respect for the law (it may also show that Clinton has not fulfilled his oath – not surprising for a perjurer – to uphold the Constitution and execute the laws of the United States).

To be fair, the American disrespect for the law is not only the product of zealous do-gooders striving to overturn unjust laws. It is also the product of misguided legislators and citizens – who, to be fair, are zealous do-gooders as well – who have given America a severe case of hyperlexis (that's Latin for "too much law").

St. Thomas Aquinas famously writes in his Summa Theologica that the law should not require more of a people than they are able to do, as they will lose respect for the law. Despite the fact that St. Thomas lived from 1225 to 1274, our "experts" in Washington (who would be ousted by term limits) have not learned this lesson. Thus, the Congress passes its share of burdensome laws – the tax code, for one – while spawning other federal agencies with "rule-making" powers that are effectively legislative powers. Between EPA and OSHA, try to find a good oil-based paint, or some good paint for a tin roof. Sorry, all illegal now. As one contractor recently told me, "The government thinks we're all too foolish to make decisions for ourselves."

In response, sensible Americans have come to despise our laws. This is fine; it is the natural and expected response of sane and intelligent persons to idiotic regulations. But from a long-term perspective, it is bad. This is the trouble with the nations recovering from 70 years of Communism: the population has grown so used to black markets, bribing officials, and ignoring the kleptocrats in power that they are having difficulty in creating a civil society based on trust, work (private enterprise) and cooperation.

The Constitution is indeed "living," so long as by "living" we mean that it has not been repealed. In terms of its actual effect on our daily lives, however, it is as dead as the men who wrote it. We live in an America defined by the lust for power and a disregard for the very concept of law. This cannot change until the American citizenry realizes that government, no matter how "well-intentioned," cannot magically solve everyone's problems. It is only by hard work and individual effort that any problem can be solved

Consider for a moment the energy required to make your yard look good. Mowing, weeding, raking, fertilizing, occasional watering, aerating and vigilant watching for pestilence is required to have a nice-looking lawn. Edging along sidewalks, curbs and driveways is required. All this to maintain a parcel of American land perhaps 100 feet by sixty feet. Can any governmental agency effectively replace your efforts to care for your lawn? Would you trust anyone else to take care of your lawn? If you pay for landscaping services, you certainly know how expensive this is. Substitute "poverty" for "lawn care," and you get the idea: it cannot be done. The government, no matter how much wealth it seizes, cannot effectively do for people what they cannot or will not do for themselves.

This is why private charity – individual initiative – is the best approach to social problems. We must care for our own relatives, parishioners, and neighbors who are sick, unemployed, or similarly troubled. There is no substitute for the intimate local knowledge of a problem, and for the desire to help someone you know, rather than a desire to help a faceless "humanity" which you can never see. Most importantly, there is no way to avoid the reality of hard work. The decision to "let the government do it" is simply a decision to "let someone else do it" – and it is clear where such decisions usually lead: nothing gets done, and we end up with a bigger mess than at the beginning.

Want to live under the rule of law instead of the rule of "great men" (who turn out to be merely charismatic boobs that lied their way to the top)? Work hard, and don't expect Big Brother to help you out. In such a world, there is no need for Big Brother, hence no need for him to take half your income – and no sophistry like a "living" Constitution.

December 7, 2000

Mr. Dieteman is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2000 David Dieteman
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/dieteman5.html

[Trueblue]

No I do not You just want it to be flexible when it suits you and not any other time.

You are just trying to stir the shit! :lol That is not the case, you might read the article I gave the link for.



Semetics here. If warrentless wire-tapping is unconstitutional by violating your freedom of privacy why is whiretapping with the consent of the government any less of an intrusion?

No, it's not a semantic issue. Read the 4th Amendment.

No it is not.

Well, yeah, it is. You are jumping to a conclusion.

Yep sure, goinging to pull a knife to protect my family from a criminal wielding a GUN. Oh wait knives will probably be banned as well.

How about a rifle or shotgun? Dogs? Telephones? Alarm systems?




That is not what is at stake here. I am in favor of the current gun laws we have.


Me, too. So why are you arguing with me?

Nope SCOTUS has dodged this issue.

I just looked it up, the SC has heard five cases directly related to the 2nd Amendment.

Sorry but wrong. The issue is the banning of guns. DC has a gun ban not just regulations, if it were just regulation and restrictions this would not be going to the SCOTUS.

Sorry but wrong. [I can't resist firing it back at you. :lol] DC has a ban on handguns. Not on all firearms.

[Trueblue]

That is why they put the power to amend it; not that it was a living breathing changing document.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/dieteman5.html

Read my link for some balance.

[Trueblue]

I don't, but since you do then you should have no problem with the Patriot Act then.

You say your rights are violated by the warrantless wire tapping and other things in the Patriot act but you have no problem taking away the rights of people to bear arms.

This is your unwarranted conclusion, that I have no problems taking away the rights of people to bear arms.

[AYFR]

I have read all of the link form wikipedia about it.

<SNIP>
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Those who would use "convenience" or "frustration" as reason, or who insist that it lies within the powers of the Court (or the Congress or the Executive) to effect constitutional change, can be charged with a lack of respect for the principles on which, as Marshall wisely observed: "the whole American fabric has been erected."<SNIP>

<SNIP>
That the American Constitution is long-lived, has enduring qualities, and was intended for the ages cannot be doubted. That it was founded on enduring principles, and that it was based on the authority of a people who are sovereign has been attested to by many of its leaders. That it can be changed when, and if, the people ordain such change is a part of its own provisions. For these reasons, it can be said to be a "Living Constitution" - but let that not be claimed by those who would use the language to subvert the structure.<SNIP>

http://www.xmission.com/~nccs/articles/ril63.html

It is ONLY changable WHEN and IF the PEOPLE decide and even then it has to be ratified and amended.

So if you mean living Constitution by saying that we the people can change it by ratification the sure but otherwise NO.

[AYFR]

This is your unwarranted conclusion, that I have no problems taking away the rights of people to bear arms.

Because that is what is at stake here.

Do you believe that it is a individual's right to bear arms or is it a collective right?

[Trueblue]

I have read all of the link form wikipedia about it.


http://www.xmission.com/~nccs/articles/ril63.html

It is ONLY changable WHEN and IF the PEOPLE decide and even then it has to be ratified and amended.

So if you mean living Constitution by saying that we the people can change it by ratification the sure but otherwise NO.

I mean what it said. Consider the text, consider the times. As Jefferson said, why ask somebody to wear the same coat they wore as a child?

[AYFR]

I mean what it said. Consider the text, consider the times. As Jefferson said, why ask somebody to wear the same coat they wore as a child?

That's fine and he gave ways to change the USC throught amendments.

That is the ONLY way the USC changes.

[AYFR]

You are just trying to stir the shit! :lol That is not the case, you might read the article I gave the link for.
No I am notI am trying to protect my rights here




No, it's not a semantic issue. Read the 4th Amendment.
I have and did. And it doesn't say that the Government can suspend the USC becasue it is in agreement that it should.

Well, yeah, it is. You are jumping to a conclusion.

Not at all

How about a rifle or shotgun? Dogs? Telephones? Alarm systems?
A rifle and a shotgun are guns and thus would be also banned. Dogs can be shot, the police take to long (lots of people that are alive now would be dead while waitign on the police if not for guns), alarm systems do not stop anyone the deter criminals but do not stop them.





Me, too. So why are you arguing with me?
Because these two statements made by you seem to me to say that yo udo not support the second as an individual right.



An interesting argument, but it doesn't completely make the case, IMO.



People do seem to believe that the 2nd Amendment means that they can own just about anything. Washington DC is a mess of a crime ridden city, and the people in charge of local government thought this might help. I can see their reasoning, even if the NRA cannot.


I just looked it up, the SC has heard five cases directly related to the 2nd Amendment.
Yes and none have determined whether or not it is a collective or individual right, Thus they dodge the issue.


Sorry but wrong. [I can't resist firing it back at you. :lol] DC has a ban on handguns. Not on all firearms.
Ahem you might want to read this.

A 30-year ban on loaded shotguns, rifles and handguns in homes and businesses is set for repeal in Washington DC, where one of the strictest gun possession laws in the nation is in existence. The House of Representatives voted 259-161 on June 30 to allow an amendment by Mark Souder, R-Ind. to become attached to the federal district’s appropriations bill that later passed 405-18.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

[Trueblue]

That's fine and he gave ways to change the USC throught amendments.

That is the ONLY way the USC changes.

Then why all the interpretations, over all the years? Why do we even HAVE a judicial system?

The article you posted is so full of straw men that nobody better strike a match. It misrepresents what is meant by a living document.

[AYFR]

Then why all the interpretations, over all the years? Why do we even HAVE a judicial system?

The article you posted is so full of straw men that nobody better strike a match. It misrepresents what is meant by a living document.

The judical system is to emforce the USC not change it.

AS for different intrepretations IDK. The Constitution is plainly written. It needs no deciphering

[Trueblue]

The judical system is to emforce the USC not change it.

AS for different intrepretations IDK. The Constitution is plainly written. It needs no deciphering

Actually, the judicial system is for deciphering as well as enforcing.

The USC is subject to interpretation. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

[AYFR]

Actually, the judicial system is for deciphering as well as enforcing.

The USC is subject to interpretation. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

:roll

[Trueblue]

I have and did. And it doesn't say that the Government can suspend the USC becasue it is in agreement that it should.

You haven't and didn't. The 4th Amendment allows government intrusion WITH A WARRANT. I am not opposed to wiretapping, I am opposed to warrentless wiretapping. To wiretap with a warrant is not "suspending" the USC? Do you understand what I am saying?

All the articles said handguns, I didn't realize it was also a ban on rifles and shotguns. Regardless, I don't see that a ban in DC being upheld means that nobody anywhere can have a gun.

[Trueblue]

:roll

Judicial review is a concept that goes back some time. The purpose is to prevent tyranny by the legislature.

[toxic]

One of the distinguishing phrases is:

Do we want the USSC to interpret what the founding fathers meant in 1789, or what they would have intended to mean today.

Some things change over time other things do not.

Science has changed our understanding of life. Most of us know the brain determines concious life, not the heartbeat. This type of change may warrent legal evolution by the court.

The concept of a Warrent, has not changed at all.

The concept of Arms has not changed, but other wording is a little ambigious.

Armed law abiding citizens are by definition no threat to society and perhaps an aid.

Let the states or cities decide what suits them, but let the US Constitution provide the maximum liberty to those that deserve it (non-criminals), without extra burden.

A weapon is not a silent killer, nor does it have much range. A discharging firearm in most neighborhoods get attention quickly. A bright muzzle flash and report at night gets a lot of attention. A gun should not be a killer's weapon of choice.

[Wabash]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

Oh brother! Amendments, only Amendments and NOTHING but Amendments!
That's fine and he gave ways to change the USC throught amendments.

That is the ONLY way the USC changes.

You bet it is!!!!

The judical system is to emforce the USC not change it.

AS for different intrepretations IDK. The Constitution is plainly written. It needs no deciphering

:roll

Fun talking to an alien huh? She is definitely from another planet!

Judicial review is a concept that goes back some time. The purpose is to prevent tyranny by the legislature.
And by the Exec. Branch as well!

[Trueblue]

One of the distinguishing phrases is:

Do we want the USSC to interpret what the founding fathers meant in 1789, or what they would have intended to mean today.

Some things change over time other things do not.

Science has changed our understanding of life. Most of us know the brain determines concious life, not the heartbeat. This type of change may warrent legal evolution by the court.

The concept of a Warrent, has not changed at all.

The concept of Arms has not changed, but other wording is a little ambigious.

Armed law abiding citizens are by definition no threat to society and perhaps an aid.

Let the states or cities decide what suits them, but let the US Constitution provide the maximum liberty to those that deserve it (non-criminals), without extra burden.

A weapon is not a silent killer, nor does it have much range. A discharging firearm in most neighborhoods get attention quickly. A bright muzzle flash and report at night gets a lot of attention. A gun should not be a killer's weapon of choice.

Do you think it would get as much attention in DC? I am really concerned about what would be best for this beleaguered part of our nation. All ideology aside, do you think that they would be better off armed or unarmed? I'm sure they didn't make this move lightly.

[Yellowdogtexan]

The Austin paper has a good editorial that is right on point in that until recently the courts have never recognized an individual right under the Second Amendment and the lack of such right has not affected gun ownership. http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/editorial/entries/2007/11/25/gun_ownership_doesnt_need_boos.html#commentsSchola rly opinion now comes down squarely on both sides of the question (with even some liberal professors, such as UT’s Sanford Levinson and Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe, arguing for individual gun rights).

But the one opinion that matters - that of the Supreme Court - has been clear. Though Second Amendment opinions are scarce, the court has consistently held through the years - most particularly in U.S. v. Miller in 1939 - that the amendment was intended by the framers to allow states to raise militias without federal interference and had nothing to do with private ownership of guns.

The Supreme Court is usually reluctant to reverse settled law without good reason, and the justices should be reluctant now to read into the Second Amendment an enshrining of guns they don’t need and, legally speaking, haven’t had anyway for more than two centuries.

Guns have their proper places in lawful society, but they are inherently unsafe consumer products that should be subject to the same reasonable regulation as might be expected of any hazardous product, whether it be a pesticide, an automobile or a weapon.

The supposed lack of Second Amendment protection has certainly not prevented the United States from being simply awash in guns, with 35,000 deaths and 100,000 injuries every year a testament to their deadly omnipresence. If guns made us safe, the United States would be the safest country in the world instead of suffering gun deaths at a rate eight times that of any other developed country.

Giving firearms a special, constitutionally privileged status not accorded any other product will do nothing to protect responsible gun ownership and everything to prevent the reasonable regulation of dangerous gunplay.The courts have never recognized an individual right under the Second Amendment until the DC Circuit and the courts have been clear that the Second Amendment is NOT a fundamental right and is not applicable to the States under the 14th Amendment. Despite such lack of protection under the Constitution, gun ownership has not been significantly hampered.

Does anyone think that there is the political will right now to pass gun control laws right now??? Given the Reverend lives in Texas, he can be assured that there will be no gun control on the state level in the foreseeable future.