Supreme Court upholds right to own guns

[+Dave 2,322]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404

 

A good day for us gun owners.

[Ruggbutt 45]

It's a shame that the judges are so political that it was a 5/4 decision. Even a retard can read what our founding fathers meant with the Bill of Rights (they're all individual rights). I guess what I'm saying is that just under half of our Supreme Court justices are fecking retards.

[+Tailspin 3]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/up...8/06/07-290.pdf

 

 

Affirmation of the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms is great. However the ruling is limited in scope and seems to apply only to total bans. Other than outright bans I don't think the ruling will affect many stupid gun laws already on the books. I'm happy but not dancin' in the streets.

 

 

EDIT....wrong url. I've fixed it so you can get the syllabus and the actual ruling.

[column5 63]

It's a shame that the judges are so political that it was a 5/4 decision. Even a retard can read what our founding fathers meant with the Bill of Rights (they're all individual rights). I guess what I'm saying is that just under half of our Supreme Court justices are fecking retards.

 

You know that Brier got beat up one night in a DC park a couple years back while he was out cruising for gay hook-ups. It was covered up in the news.

[+Jarhead1 27]

Thank God, atleast not all 9 were retarded, lol, and thank god those 5 DO have common sense!!!

[+Tailspin 3]

It's a shame that the judges are so political that it was a 5/4 decision. Even a retard can read what our founding fathers meant with the Bill of Rights (they're all individual rights). I guess what I'm saying is that just under half of our Supreme Court justices are fecking retards.

 

This is why the Presidential election is so important. Supreme Court nominations. I live in Illinois and the current Democratic candidate for President has a well documented history of voting anti-2nd Ammendment. No matter what he says about it during the campaign if he claims he is Pro 2A, he's lying through his teeth.

[Guest pfunkmusik]

What's frightening to me is that for something so clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it was a simple majority decision.

 

That's not supposed to happen.

 

pfunk

[Ruggbutt 45]

What's frightening to me is that for something so clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it was a simple majority decision.

 

That's not supposed to happen.

The court still needs to correct itself regarding eminent domain..........

[+whiteknight06604 935]

You know that Brier got beat up one night in a DC park a couple years back while he was out cruising for gay hook-ups. It was covered up in the news.

 

i remember that ,if he wasn't dressed in his robes when he cruised me I wouldn't have hit the old bugger.

[ironroad 218]

Well growing up and living in and around the District (and coming from a family that was born and raised in some of the roughest areas of D.C. and Maryland) and having family who were DC police I can tell you all this...

 

The criminals in D.C. have always had easy access to guns. Even with MPD (DC police) and about 6 federal agencies/protective services patrolling the streets.

 

The DC government is corrupt on the bureaucratic level (since the late 70s-80s), the mayors have been hit or miss.

 

After all of the drugs, crime, murders, robberies, etc. the DC government is now trying to reform the city into "Happy" place basically a San Fransisco of the east Coast or Manhattan Jr. Why? Because of late more "yuppies" are flooding into the city. Especially since Anthony Williams (last mayor) got the tax rated hiked on residents and lowered it on businesses and commercial enterprises. Since then all of the rift-raft and criminal type stuff has been pushed out into Southern Maryland and Northern Va.

 

Many people, especially the people who come to D.C. to live for short periods of been complaining about this gun ban forever, because criminals can easily get guns and regular citizens can not and decent citizens are always treated as if they are criminals by the DC government. Why, because all the Feds regulate guns whenever you cross the city into their territory, the criminals and rift-raft do not hang out over there, they hang out where people live (city controlled areas.) Furthermore, all you have to do is waltz over into Virgina or Maryland to Walmart and get a shot gun and cut the barrel off.

 

D.C.'s murder rate and crime is still pretty low, compared what has happened in the city in the past. The riots, crack wars, and during the term of Mayor Barry, the city saw much much worse.

 

Finally, a lot of the criminal who are "DC based", now commit their crimes over in Maryland along the border areas in NE or SE. Infact, a few months back a mass murder occurred in the neighborhood right next to the DC Police Academy. The gun ban has been in place for ever, but got recent attention because the DC government has started using sweeping powers to do things that are questionable. Closing down night clubs, bars, and restaurants at random, quarantining neighborhoods and stopping and searching anyone that goes into them, and a lot of DC police officers have been terminated and or tried for wrong doings and blatant civil rights violations. Furthermore, a lot of DC bureaucrats have been canned for the same thing.

 

It is good that they are finally trying to clean up the city (after 35+ years of not giving a rats ass unless it was near Downtown and Federal Government territory), but DO NOT turn my city into San Fransisco II or Greenwich Village!!!

Edited June 26, 2008 by ironroad

[eraser_tr 29]

Gun rights do need a bit of common sense limitations though. Nothing wrong with handguns and the like, total bans are outrageous, but can anyone really say someone with a violent history should really be carrying a gun?

[column5 63]

The criminals in D.C. have always had easy access to guns. Even with MPD (DC police) and about 6 federal agencies/protective services patrolling the streets.

 

That is the key. If we banned all guns today, the only people affected would be law-abiding gun owners. Criminals will allways be able to get them.

 

but can anyone really say someone with a violent history should really be carrying a gun?

 

No amount of legislation can prevent it.

[rovert97 1]

if it wasnt raining, i would be on my way to the gun range right now.

[eraser_tr 29]

Very true. But the difference is if they're caught with a gun, there's something that can be done about it. It's a no brainer, like keeping sex offenders away from schools and places with lots of kids, yeah they can always get by somehow, but that doesn't mean no effort should be made.

[column5 63]

Very true. But the difference is if they're caught with a gun, there's something that can be done about it. It's a no brainer, like keeping sex offenders away from schools and places with lots of kids, yeah they can always get by somehow, but that doesn't mean no effort should be made.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. It has been illegal for criminals to possess firearms for many years. Keep in mind that this is a federal law so when you read all that mumbo jumbo about interstate commerce that is how they acquire jurisdiction (basically all guns have to travel across a state line at some point in their distribution and sale).

 

None of this stops criminals from obtaining guns and using them.

 

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person— 
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; 
(2) who is a fugitive from justice; 
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); 
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; 
(5) who, being an alien— 
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or 
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); 
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; 
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; 
(8) who is subject to a court order that— 
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; 
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and 
(C) 
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or 
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or 
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, 
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

[+Tailspin 3]

Gun rights do need a bit of common sense limitations though. Nothing wrong with handguns and the like, total bans are outrageous, but can anyone really say someone with a violent history should really be carrying a gun?

 

Problem is most "common sense limitations" don't involve common sense. Case in point:

 

High capacity magazines. Most laws limiting hi-cap pistol mags are set at 10 rounds. Lets say an assailant has 60 rounds to fire. Lets assume 1 second per round to aim and fire. Lets also assume a 5 sec. reload time (actually with a little practice you can reload in 3 sec. or less). Thats 10sec./10rnd mag. + 5 sec. per reload for 6 mags. for a total of 90 seconds.

 

Now lets assume the assailant has those evil 15 round mags. Thats 15 sec./ mag + 5 sec/ reload for 4 mags. Thats a total of 80 seconds. Wow. We've slowed down that assailant by a whole 10 seconds.

[+Typhoid 231]

Very true. But the difference is if they're caught with a gun, there's something that can be done about it. It's a no brainer, like keeping sex offenders away from schools and places with lots of kids, yeah they can always get by somehow, but that doesn't mean no effort should be made.

 

that is already well established law. The Insta-check system is designed for that reason, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those with a history of mental illness.

 

A previously convicted felon caught with a gun gets an automatic life term in I think every state.

 

This goes back to a very fundamental issue on gun laws and laws in general. If the laws we already have were actually enforced, we would peace, prosperity and safety erupt everywhere.

 

What happens is that the laws don't get enforced by the corrupt and incompetent lefties elected in many liberal/progressive/socialist/collectivist locales at the local, state, and federal levels. So the problems get worse leading the corrupt and incompetent to call for more restrictive laws so that they can evolve from the liberal/progressive/socialist/collectivist to the liberal/progressive/socialist/collectivist/Stalinist/Fascist/Dictatorships with themselves, of course, in charge.

[ironroad 218]

Yeah but in my IMHO, owning a gun in the District legally will not make any change at all. People from out of state (and the District seems to be full of them now days...ooh great) always bring their guns in, hell when I ride the metro the metal detectors go off constantly. Last week and man ran off a Metro bus, starting shooting at two guys at a bus stop, and two guys returned fire. Stuff like that happens in that part of the city constantly, been happening like that since the gun was in place. So this ruling does not change much as far as District residents go, because they will always be harassed or have their rights curtailed by the city government in some other form or way.

 

The main worry as of late (since my father, sister, and her former husband) are(were) all city cops, was some out of state puke or bouncers getting froggy with DC police at a night club and bucking off a few rounds. The criminals and cats that hang in the street already have guns and everyone knows it. And they do not venture up into the affluent neighborhoods of Georgetown, Chevy Chase, Dupont Circle, etc. unless they are going to night spots. Even then they will not mess with the people up there, because they know Secrete Service or D.C. Police would have them in sling. They go back to their home neighborhoods or into Maryland to rob people.

 

Btw a good number night club owners, liquor store owners, and club bouncers carry guns into the District as well (some are off duty cops working part-time.) So the gunlaw does not change much, it just gives the people, who need may need them the most (private residents) the right to carry.

 

To be honest, I think the only people who really need to own guns in the District are the poor folk who live in the rough areas of NE and SE (Montana Ave, Bladensburg, New York ave, Barry farms, Suitland, and Anacosita.) They have to deal with the mess first hand and on a daily basis. Some of those areas were so rough, the police stopped doing patrols altogether in them at one period.

Edited June 26, 2008 by ironroad

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

That is the key. If we banned all guns today, the only people affected would be law-abiding gun owners. Criminals will allways be able to get them.

 

 

 

No amount of legislation can prevent it.

That's the problem we are facing here. One can't defend itself or its properties by the use of arms (even the police is under criticism when it use it), but criminals do bear arms and do use them. :(

It's a known thing that in some part of some suburbs, war weapons such as assault rifles (supposed to be forbidden) are common, and that tend to explain why theses are now "non-law zone".

Nonsense...

 

Actually, when someone is defending that sort of idea, be it arm ban, mass abortion, end of capital punishment or whatever... just take a look at France and Europe, and learn from the grim conclusions.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Emp_Palpatine

[DWCAce 19]

Well, it is a small victory for us normal citizens.

[Rambler 1-1 9]

lucky buggers. We have to have a liscence up here (which requires taking a training course) and a permit to use the gun, and we're only allowed to discharge it in an approved area, even with little .22s. The only people allowed to have guns in public are the police, and they only have them for show. They just use tazers, which are getting a bad reputation for killing old farts.

 

However, criminals still have no problem illegally buying high powered hunting rifles and knocking off police with them. How do you enforce a law that says you can't carry firearms if you're not allowed to carry them yourself? Our cops are in a bad position.

[eraser_tr 29]

What happens is that the laws don't get enforced by the corrupt and incompetent lefties elected in many liberal/progressive/socialist/collectivist locales at the local, state, and federal levels. So the problems get worse leading the corrupt and incompetent to call for more restrictive laws so that they can evolve from the liberal/progressive/socialist/collectivist to the liberal/progressive/socialist/collectivist/Stalinist/Fascist/Dictatorships with themselves, of course, in charge.

 

Let me get this straight, the lefty whackos who want to ban all guns are corrupt and don't enforce existing law, but the righty NRA whackos who want to give every baby a machine gun at birth faithfully enforce gun regulation?

 

The problem with enforcement is, if you're carrying a gun illegally, chances are nobody will be able to catch you at it before you go postal, which at that point its pretty much ineffective at stopping violence.

[column5 63]

righty NRA whackos who want to give every baby a machine gun at birth

 

Hyperbole is yuo.

[+Tailspin 3]

If one actually recognizes the intent of the 2nd Amendment machine guns shouldn't be prohibited. The average citizen at the time of its inception had access to state of the art military weapons. In order for the People to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic...including the State if necessary, the People should have the right to have the means to do so. The People always had the right to possess the latest technological development in basic individual military weapons until a few CRIMINALS caused the Govt. to effectively punish the People by banning machine guns. The Courts simply dropped the ball by agreeing.

[Guest USNadpc]

I agree with Ironroad, everything he posted is true. Being a district resident for the last 15 years and being robbed twice in that time frame I'm happy with the decision. On November 17, 2003 I was robbed at the corner of 15th St and Corcoran streets NW by a guy with a snubnose 38. Guess what Ironroad, the guy that robbed me used my credit cards in Maryland. They never caught the guy and trust me it was hard to just hand over my wallet without a fight, but I was smart enough to not let my ego get in the way of my better judgment.

 

When I lived in Maryland I owned a colt 45 government model stainless steel, an ar15a2 h-bar with an aimpoint 2000 dot scope and a remington 870p pump. I had to sell them all when I moved into the district. I moved downtown so I could get rid of my car and walk to work back in 1992. The trade-off was having to sell my guns. I'm happy with today's decision because I would like to be able to get another stainless 45 just for personal defense. Also, in case any terrorist crap happens here it would give me the ability to protect myself as well if people hit the streets (looting, etc.).

 

BTW, don't ever be afraid to come and sightsee here, it's a beautiful city and I love living here. There's so much to do here and most of it like the museums are free. The likelihood of you getting robbed while visiting here are slim to none.

 

I'm happy with the decision, it's been a long time coming. The rationale of some of the dissenting opinions was a little unnerving to me.

 

USNadpc