U.S. Supreme Court's Gun Grab Decision

[Popol Vuh]

I am sorry for those who believe that the Supreme Court's decision was a victory for gun rights. The sad truth is it wasn't. In my opinion this case conflicts with the earlier SCOTUS case United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) where the court made this statement:

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence..

Read this new case carefully. In summary, even though they affirmed the right of private ownership, however, they just ruled that they can impose whatever restrictions and registrations they feel they want. Registrations equals licenses. Licenses equals a privilege not a right. Licenses can be refused or revoked. Restrictions can mean anything. Restrictions on how many guns or how much ammo or how many rounds capacity, etc. Restrictions for example can also equal outlawing guns within, say, a mile of any school even though you live there, etc.

Hence, by defacto, this Supreme Court just laid the ground work to change a right into a licensed privilege.

For those who believe this was a Second Amendment victory. I am sorry, but, the language in this decision will be used as a back door method to seek further increases on restrictions and limitations to the point where it might as well be an out right ban.



That's my take on it.
Popol Vuh

[Irreverend IX]

1. The ruling kept a lot of the status quo intact...

You're right that it doesn't specify to what extent regulation, registration, etc. is acceptable, but the ruling was groundbreaking in that the Supreme Court stated for the first time in US history that the 2nd guarantees an individual right, and that the RKBA is intended for self-defense, not just hunting. Until now, some circuit courts have argued that the RKBA is an individual right and others have said it's a collective right. The "collective RKBA" concept is now dead and buried.

[depakid]

2. "now dead and buried."

That might be so if the court still respected star decisis.

Fortunately in this case- as was the deal in Lawrence, it does not. Yet another of the casualties of the Republican "revolutions."

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Huh?

Stare decisis never meant that a decision could never be revisited, ever. We'd still have segregation if that were the case.

Do you have a problem with their decision in Lawrence?

[CountAllVotes]

3. just in ... Ted Kennedy Differs from He Who He Has Annointed

KENNEDY SPOKESMAN ON SUPREME COURT DECISION STRIKING DOWN THE D.C. GUN BAN

WASHINGTON, DC— Anthony Coley, spokesman for Senator Edward M. Kennedy, today released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban.

“Senator Kennedy has long been committed to reasonable gun control laws, and is concerned that this decision opens Pandora's box. Much of the progress we’ve made in making Americans safer by placing reasonable restrictions on the possession of firearms is now in doubt. It’s a bitter irony that this setback comes in the name of a right to self-defense. As Senator Kennedy has repeatedly pointed out, members of the Roberts Court have consistently shown their determination to impose regressive changes in the law despite their claims of judicial humility at their confirmation hearings.”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGZlOTA3YzcxOWNlMTk1ZjIyYTliYjVmOTBjYTRjODk=

Seems you aren't alone! :thumbsup:

:kick:

[Tejas]

4. I don't get it

"Much of the progress we’ve made in making Americans safer by placing reasonable restrictions on the possession of firearms is now in doubt."


Seems to me that the only section of Americans that have been made safer are the criminals in our society.


Citizens disarming themselves do not make themselves safer.

[CountAllVotes]

6. ever been to Washington, D.C.?

I have and I was glad when I heard they had banned hand guns there.

The crime will only rise higher now and there will be more *accidents* too.

[pipoman]

9. Really?

Is this your personal theory or do you have some basis for this claim? How is it that allowing law abiding citizens guns to defend themselves in their homes going to cause crime to escalate? I mean it isn't like DC has been a panacea of peace since 1976. Seems criminals in DC haven't been much effected by the ban, huh?

[Tejas]

12. CAV, you forgot

the 'sarcasm' icon.

Really, you don't expect anyone to take your statement seriously do you?

Do you actually believe criminals heeded the ban?

[penguin7]

7. With 16,000 people blowing their own brains out every year,

why the charade that guns do not go to people with damaged brains?

[CountAllVotes]

13. I know two people that are dead from guns

One first one was a family friend who was a young teenager that was playing with his father's gun while they were out for the afternoon; an accident.

The other person was murdered by a crazy person who went into town and bought a gun, a wig, and sought out her victim and shot him in cold blood. He was a nice guy, a homeopathic doctor in fact and also, I might add a friend of mine. :(

I have yet to see a gun used to defend oneself. I've sure seen one too many accidents and also a murder.

Guns banned in D.C. - yes, a good idea IMO.

I don't care what anyone thinks about my opinion. Knowing two people that shouldn't be dead because of guns is enough of a reason for me!

[readmoreoften]

14. I have a better solution for suicide than gun control.

Not living in a society that makes you want to blow your brains out I think is a key factor in prevention.

[Thothmes]

8. This as opposed to Feinstenin and Schumer that have called

for the outright banning of hand guns. Restrictions and limitations are acceptable. Some Dems want outright ban and confiscation. Will accept the courts decision at face value.

[beevul]

10. Interpretation is everything.

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence..."


The Bill of Rights does not "grant" rights, it protects them. So saying that any right in particular is not granted by the constitution, is factually correct. Saying that any particular right does not "in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" is also factually correct. All rights belong to the people. No document creates them. Rights like the one being discussed, depend on the documents in question, for protection from sticky governmental fingers.

Licensing will be struck down eventually, across the boards. There is existing case law on that already.

As for the rest, time will tell.

Here we are though, just 2 days after the Heller decision was released, and there are already at least 3, and maybe as many as 6 court cases filed on second amendment grounds.


its going to get far more interesting, IMO.

[-..__...]

11. Should the gun control debate head in that direction...

There are solutions (all of which I whole heartedly support)...

refuse to vote for candidates the support gun control laws...

vote against incumbents that support gun control laws...

and perhaps the most important thing...

petition your representative(s) in Congress to confirm judicial nominees that support the second amendment and reject those that don't.

Doesn't really matter what "reasonable restrictions" are allowed... they can only happen with the consent of Congress.

Keep the gun grabbers out of the Capitol building and the days of gun control legislation will have as about much relevance as wondering what to do about cattle rustlers and claim jumpers.