Supreme Court to review 2nd Amendment
I saw two blurbs on the news this morning about the Supreme Court planning to review the Washington D.C. policy that the 2nd Amendment does not cover the average citizen to own a weapon(gun). If they (Supreme Court) side with the current laws of Washington D.C., this could prompt other states and cities to follow suite. I'm no chicken little but this could be dangerous water to wade through. This, combined with the very real possibility that the Democrats are going to take power in the next presidential election, could be the beginning of bringing back the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and 10 round magazines for semi-auto weapons. I think it is time for the NRA to get off it's ass and start getting things organized to confront this potential issue before they have to play catch up.
0
-
Or it could be very good if they decide that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. All sorts of laws might in that case get rolled back. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by spurgemastur
Or it could be very good if they decide that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. All sorts of laws might in that case get rolled back.
Absolutely!! Bring it on!!!! Way, way past due!!!0 -
There is no precedence for the court to rule against private ownership and possesion of guns. All of the laws pertaining to guns are based on the allowance by the constitution of congress to regulate interstate commerce. Anti-gun politicos and social engineers try to exceed the limits of pure commerce regulation and figure that after all this time people just accept that they have the "right" to pass any type of gun regulation they desire. The court ruled in favor of a fellow that designed and built his own machine guns because he never tried to sell them or take them across state lines for commercial purposes. And that was the court before O'Connor left. It is the anti-gun crowd who should fear this going to the court. 0 -
"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."
do the commas not mean anything, I'm not an English Major but i would say yes.0 -
Commas, or no commas, we need to have competent representation at those hearings. 0 -
Fred Thomson or Ron Paul? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by joker5656
"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."
do the commas not mean anything, I'm not an English Major but i would say yes.
It isn't about commas and never has been, except in the mind of those who want to read something into it that was never intended to be there.
The founders thoughts and their intentions are available for anyone to see in a number of fashions, two of which are the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist.
The intent for Amendment II to enumerate an individual right to keep and bear arms is not debatable in any sane sense. The Bill of Rights to the US Constitution is an express restraint on government in a number of particular areas, in this case, relating to infringing on an individuals God-given RTKBA, period.0 -
quote:Originally posted by victorlvlb
Fred Thomson or Ron Paul?
Nunn.0 -
I am concerned that the Supreme Court will not over rule the Washington D.C. law. Then what, the second amendment means nothing at thiat point. 0 -
Green Mile;
As you crawl on your belly to beg permission from daddy to buy a gun, and you pay a couple hundred bucks, spend a day, and allow ferrets to dig around in your past to carry it...Do somehow you imagine you still HAVE a Second Amendment Right to have a weapon ?
No sir...you have a PRIVLIGE to own a gun..and putting "A dress on a pig"..as one of our posters is fond of saying..STILL makes it a stinking pile of bovine.
You started losing the Second Amendment about 1935..and 1968 saw the end of it.
This nation of `Strong, free men' revealed exactly what they are.cowards.0 -
That is "porcine",sir. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by joker5656
"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."
do the commas not mean anything, I'm not an English Major but i would say yes.
I earned my BA in English in 2002, so here goes:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," can be reworded for clarity to say "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,"
Now insert the rewording:
"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I've argued before (and I don't think anybody here would disagree) People means People in the other amendments that state "the People," so why would People mean Government in the 2nd?
I heard an idiot radio announcer comment that the supreme court was going to take up the 2nd Amendment case in the next few days to see whether people in DC should be allowed to own handguns, or "If guns were for the military, like the constitution says."0 -
IF the Supremes decide to hear this case, which was overturned in an Appellate decision months ago; they will have Amicus Curae briefs presented by the NRA and others to read and hopefully understand the issue.
When the case was originally heard, the judge stated that the words,"The People" are a term of art denoting the citizens of the Nation, and that they mean exactly the same thing as when used in the 5 other Amendments.
The Klinton-stuffed State & justice Depts. have tried to intervene in the decision of the lower court by claiming that the "District" is somehow not a part of the nation.
Whiners and detractors aside: the NRA is, has been, and probably will continue to be on the forefront of this issue, until we get a decision that agrees with the Constitution.
Elitist effetes apparently don't just come from THEIR side of the aisle, but infect even this stellar forum.0 -
quote:Originally posted by gunnut505
Whiners and detractors aside: the NRA is, has been, and probably will continue to be on the forefront of this issue, until we get a decision that agrees with the Constitution.
I guess that explains why the NRA was so interested in killing the case before it went to trial0 -
Why it ain't like it is rocket science!!!
What should be doing is ordering the States to freaking inforce it 100%0 -
do you fear your government?
do you fear your government might take away constitutional rights?0 -
Antony Kennedy is the swing vote 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
do you fear your government?
do you fear your government might take away constitutional rights?
I Fear lack of sleep!!! If the guns are gone..I figure sleep in America would be rarer than Hen's teeth!!!0 -
quote:Whiners and detractors aside: the NRA is, has been, and probably will continue to be on the forefront of this issue, until we get a decision that agrees with the Constitution.
Sheer, utter nonsense.
A man ought to be ashamed to reveal ignorance at this breathtaking level.
The NRA has attempted to kill this suit from day one. Now they are attempting to run around to the front and 'lead' it.
The NRA...as the above poster does..believes without question that the Government has the 'right' to limit guns to citizens.0 -
"do you fear your government?
do you fear your government might take away constitutional rights?"
YES I DO! I TRUST NO GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION BECAUSE THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO BE TRUSTED! Government officials will say anything so that they can stay in office and in power.0 -
...and because when something is "argued", it doesn't necessarily mean that the CORRECT decision will be made. that's the problem. see how the yoyos from DC were trying to say that the 2nd doesn't guarantee individual rights.
quote:Commas, or no commas, we need to have competent representation at those hearings.+++++++10 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Green Mile;
No sir...you have a PRIVLIGE to own a gun..and putting "A dress on a pig""cow"..as one of our posters is fond of saying..STILL makes it a stinking pile of bovine.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
22 comments