Supreme Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case: Will raise political issue in time for '08 election

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: Washington Post

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 20, 2007

The Supreme Court announced today that it will decide whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Constitution, a choice that will put the justices at the center of the controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years.

The court's decision could have broad implications for gun-control measures locally and across the country, and will raise a hotly contested political issue just in time for the 2008 elections.

The court will hear the case after the first of the year. A decision likely would come before it adjourns at the end of June.

For years, legal scholars, historians and grammarians have debated the meaning of the amendment because of its enigmatic wording and odd punctuation: "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."

Gun rights proponents say the words guarantee the right of an individual to possess firearms. Gun-control supporters say it conveys only a civic or "collective" right to own guns as part of service in an organized military organization....

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112000893.html?hpid=topnews

[onehandle]

1. Karl Rove lives. nt

[brendan120678]

4. What does Karl Rove have to do with it?

The 2nd Amendment grants to the people the right to own firearms.
The SCOTUS is, hopefully, finally going to say once and for all that this is the case.

Of course, they'll probably chicken out and say that their ruling only applies to D.C., and uphold the overturning of that ban.

[onehandle]

7. Uh...Karl Rove says let's get this discussion into the news for 2008.

SCOTUS says, "Yes sir!"

Gun nuts flock to the polls to take it out on Democrats because the NRA tells them to.

Welcome to Politics 101.

[AndyTiedye]

11. The Gun Issue is the Gift That Keeps on Giving for the Repiggies

[BadgerLaw2010]

23. That would be due to stupid Democrats.

Gun bans are worthless and they lose elections.

[AndyTiedye]

25. The Dems Surrendered On That Issue Decades Ago

Though I think even if every Dem who ever supported gun control retired from politics
the NRA would still back the Repiglickins every time, because the Repiggies start wars,
and wars use a lot more guns and ammo than all the NRA members could ever dream of.

[virginia mountainman]

34. I don't know about that...

The NRA endorses SEVERAL Democrats in my state...

I don't expect "NARAL" and "Move On" to endorse people who disagree with them, why should the NRA be an different??

[alarimer]

51. I'd vote against anyone endorsed by the NRA

They suck. Rabid gun nuts, against even rational gun control, which I think this country needs.

[krispos42]

60. The funny thing about 'rational gun control'...

is that the people that define "rational" are rabid anti-gun nuts who won't discuss the issue. The come up with (or read about) some law that sounds like a good idea, and then call everybody that won't sign on to it things like, well, "rabid gun nuts".

Here's an idea. Ask the "rabid guns nuts" what they THINK the laws should be. You might be surprised by the results.

[Paladin]

63. Actually I Wouldn't Be A Damned Bit Surprised.

Hanging out in the DU Gun Dungeon for a short amount of time will confirm the fact that "rabid gun nuts" don't think there's any such thing as "rational gun control." Period. End of story. The only gun laws such people favor are the ones which put a maximum number of guns on the street, with minimal proactive measures available to law enforcement to keep said guns from falling into the wrong hands.....

[krispos42]

67. Period. End of story.

Excellent dialogue. We've accomplished a lot today.

[Paladin]

73. Can't Refute Me, Can You? Happy Thanksgiving..... (n/t)

[krispos42]

91. Can't refute a closed mind until it opens

It's ridiculous to argue about the ACLU and the First Amendment in this manner:

Those free-speech nuts want EVERYBODY to be able to say and print ANYTHING they want to, anytime, anywhere, without restriction! Don't those free-speechers KNOW that free speech can be horribly misused, and is a clear and present danger to the safety and security of the communities? I don't know why they can't understand that we need REASONABLE restrictions on free speech!!! After all, it's not like it's an individual right or anything like that!

Yet that is exactly what you're doing.

You're treating the Second Amendment like BushCo and his freeper base treat the other amendments and Constitution.

You're arguing against a caricature. You're created a mental framework that a gun-owner must exist in that is inaccurate. And you LOVE the framework because it fits in your larger framework of a 'cultural war'. A framework that, incidently, the right-wing noise machine loves to promote.

So you stay in your framework. And, as George Lakeoff notes in Don't Think of an Elephant, facts that don't fit the framework bounce off. Which they are doing on this issue.

So, it doesn't matter if I refute you or not, because if I do, your mental framework won't allow the refutation in.

Hopefully others that read this will have their mind opened a little, though.

[Paladin]

94. Yeah, Like Gun Activists Are Known For Their Open Minds....

And you've got a lot of Goddamned nerve, trying to link me with the right wing----all you gun militants deal in is right-wing talking points, including the constant shit-canning of the ACLU because it doesn't happen to share your NRA-friendly viewpoint on guns. As always, evidence of all of this is available on a daily basis down in the DU Gun Dungeon, where the usual, quadrennial trashing of Democratic candidates is well under way.

I'll agree with you on one thing, though: this conversation is over.....

[beevul]

96. Get off your high horse Paladin.

And you've got a lot of Goddamned nerve, trying to link me with the right wing----all you gun militants deal in is right-wing talking points, including the constant shit-canning of the ACLU because it doesn't happen to share your NRA-friendly viewpoint on guns. As always, evidence of all of this is available on a daily basis down in the DU Gun Dungeon, where the usual, quadrennial trashing of Democratic candidates is well under way.

You have alot of balls to question anyones bonafides, try linking THEM to the right wing, while at the same time hiding behind brady and helmke. They're acceptable republicans in your eyes, because they share your feelings about firearms and the people that wont capitulate to the bradys latest so called "reasonable" regulation, isn't that right?



I'll tell you what. You denounce brady and helmke forever and publicly, on this board in this thread, and you *might* gain some credibility.

Until then, your just another pot calling a kettle black.


I'll be waiting for your denounciation.

[Paladin]

98. I'm Sorry: Were You Under The Impression....

...that your opinion of me counts for anything?

Enjoy your wait.....

[beevul]

105. It has nothing to do with my opinion of you.

Fact: You support brady/helmke. You refuse to denounce them, so what conclusion can any reasonable person conclude eh?

Fact: Brady/helmke are republicans.


Fact: You attack another poster for support of gun rights - one whom I have seen more than once denounce the nra. Meanwhile, you yourself would go so far as supporting republicans to advance your little anti-gun agenda or thiers. Once again, you refuse to denounce them so what conclusion can any reasonable person conclude?



The morale of this story:

You got no business attacking anyone for thier support of gun rights, particularly one who has denounced the nra, while YOU on the other hand support KNOWN republicans that bave been shown to be lieing and dishonest as most reasonable people know republicans frequently are - because they support your stand on gun control.

I was wrong. Pot and kettle are far too equivalent for there to be any parallel here.

[Paladin]

106. I Have A Bit Over 3300 Posts, To Date.

I invite you to review each and every one of them to try and find an instance where I have specifically aligned myself with Brady or Helmke. I might share some of the same views on guns as they do, but I don't recall identifying myself with them, as you're so feverishly trying to establish. I am certainly not a member of Ms. Brady's organization. If DU Guncentrics want to avoid being linked with the NRA, perhaps they should not publicly support the organization down in the Guns forum so often.

And let's pierce the veil as to Republican support, OK? The plain and obvious fact is that Republicans are the ones who are supporting your side of the firearms argument to an overwhelming degree, and they've been doing so for decades. You and your cohorts are a hell of a lot more beholden to Republicans than I ever will be---but then, I'm a real Democrat. And down in the Gun Dungeon right now, there's a whole bunch of denouncing going on---of Democratic candidates, as usual. Denunciation of Republican candidates? Not so much---as usual. Now: would you like me to specify exactly what you can do with your demands that I denounce Sarah Brady, or do you have a better imagination than the average gun militant?

And by the way, the word you're looking for is "moral," not "morale."

[beevul]

108. You just can't leave well enough alone can you.

"I invite you to review each and every one of them to try and find an instance where I have specifically aligned myself with Brady or Helmke. I might share some of the same views on guns as they do, but I don't recall identifying myself with them, as you're so feverishly trying to establish. I am certainly not a member of Ms. Brady's organization."

Oh...so you don't like it so much when the shoe gets put on the other foot eh?


And now you open a can of worms...that youd have been better off not opening:

"And let's pierce the veil as to Republican support, OK? The plain and obvious fact is that Republicans are the ones who are supporting your side of the firearms argument to an overwhelming degree, and they've been doing so for decades. You and your cohorts are a hell of a lot more beholden to Republicans than I ever will be---but then, I'm a real Democrat. And down in the Gun Dungeon right now, there's a whole bunch of denouncing going on---of Democratic candidates, as usual. Denunciation of Republican candidates? Not so much---as usual. Now: would you like me to specify exactly what you can do with your demands that I denounce Sarah Brady, or do you have a better imagination than the average gun militant?"

Yes, lets pierce this veil. You say that "The plain and obvious fact is that Republicans are the ones who are supporting your side of the firearms argument to an overwhelming degree". That completely ignores the fact that we have a pro-gun DEMOCRATIC congress. How do you feel about that fact? Oh wait, you already answered that - "...I'm a real Democrat". Message recieved loud and clear.


You say that "You and your cohorts are a hell of a lot more beholden to Republicans than I ever will be---but then, I'm a real Democrat". I have always found people with attitudes like yours to be humorous. You rush to point out that we pro-gun people are beholden to repubs, and convieniently leave out the fact that it is because of people with attitudes like yours that do things like push bans on rifles that are used the least of all in homicides and call it "reasonable" (and a bunch of other things), that so many people who value thier rights concerning firearms have felt they have nowhere else to turn, except away from the Democratic party.

But heres the kicker:

You wouldn't have it any other way. You don't want gun owners to be able to vote Democrat with a good conscience. You want them to capitulate to YOUR views or vote other than Democrat. So what we have here, is you gleefuly painting people that give more than 2 shits about thier rights concerning firearms, as less than "real democrats", after people with attitudes like yours did EVERYTHING to make sure the Democratic party was less a less-than-hospitable party for them to vote for. Its beautiful, I'll give you that. Dishonest, disingenuous, and despicable, but it is a thing of beauty.


You can say that people that give more than 2 shits about thier rights concerning firearms are "lot more beholden to Republicans" all you like, but you can't get away from this simple truth:

Whatever the republicans have gained because of the firearm issue, they owe it all to people with attidues like yours. No matter what you say, no matter what words you use, no matter how you spin it, you are just going to have to live with that.

[Paladin]

110. You Know What's Sad About All Of This?

What's sad about all of this is that in all probability, you and I actually agree on a significant portion of firearms policy. Really. But the dialogue has become so poisoned over the years---by both sides---that there really can't be any sort of constructive discussions any more; it's an emotional, highly divisive subject, and we're all leary of giving one another "gotcha" material by any signs of conciliation. Our little exchange here is a prime example of this. I engage in this sort of interchange for the same reason you probably do---it's lively, it gets the blood circulating, and I think your side has certain obvious weaknesses that bear exploiting (like constantly blaming Democrats for every real and imagined element of the gun debate, and letting Republicans off scott free, for instance), but I long ago gave up any notion of changing opinions with my posts.

You claim I don't know when to leave well enough alone; I'm going to do both of us a big favor and do exactly that. Happy holidays.

[beevul]

112. You are right, Paladin.

What's sad about all of this is that in all probability, you and I actually agree on a significant portion of firearms policy. Really. But the dialogue has become so poisoned over the years---by both sides---that there really can't be any sort of constructive discussions any more; it's an emotional, highly divisive subject, and we're all leary of giving one another "gotcha" material by any signs of conciliation. Our little exchange here is a prime example of this. I engage in this sort of interchange for the same reason you probably do---it's lively, it gets the blood circulating, and I think your side has certain obvious weaknesses that bear exploiting (like constantly blaming Democrats for every real and imagined element of the gun debate, and letting Republicans off scott free, for instance), but I long ago gave up any notion of changing opinions with my posts.

First off, I want to return the sentiment. I wish you and your family a happy and safe holiday season.


I would wager that we would agree on a large amount of firearms policy. And your right. It is sad that things have sunken to the level that they have. I literally feel like I have been at war over this topic for a good portion of my life. Having to defend myself and my beliefs, because of my beliefs. When you said happy holidays to me, that dawned on me. It gets to the point, that often you lose sight of the fact that theres a human being on the other side of the argument here. I am often guilty of that.

I want to explain something here. We in the gungeon...we take alot of heat for placing blame on Democrats. We place the blame, no question. Often rightly and often perhaps not so rightly. I don't claim to speak for all of us, but I bet dollars to donuts that what I'm going to say applies to many more posters than just myself.

When as you say we "blame Democrats for every real and imagined element of the gun debate, but let Republicans off scott free", we are not sticking up for republicans, nor do we intend to. We are trying to get people to understand how inhospitable things like hr1022 make this party feel for us. We are trying to get people to understand that we want this party to represent us too. We want to feel like we belong here, because we'd much rather belong here, than otherwise. We genuinely feel that for a long period of time, the Democratic party was made to be an inhospitable place for us, and that its neither fair or decent to attack us for wanting it to be a place where we belong too, rather than the alternative. Without being specific, I think there are alot of parallels that could be drawn.

The great majority of us...we aren't out to repeal the NFA. Were not out to do away with all gun control. Were not out to arm everyone. Were not out to do away with background checks. We are reasonable people. We are not really gun militants. Sure we get militant when we feel attacked, but who doesn't? We don't want to see deaths by gun or otherwise any more than you do. Deep down, you know that, and I can't place blame on you for that getting lost along the way, because like you say, the dialogue has become so poisoned over the years by both sides. War is hell.



If we two, you and I, can behave in a civil manor, anyone can.

I propose that from now on, in the gungeon or elsewhere in our discussions, we try to discuss this issue in a civil manor. And we all try to check the baggage at the door. Try to start over fresh and actually keep things cool. I am willing to try.

I didn't respond to you to argue a point, to espouse a belief, or express an ideology. I responded to you simply to express to you how I (and alot of other folks) feel about all this, and why. It is my sincere hope, that knowing that will give you some insight into why we say some of the things we say, and will allow you to see alot of us in a different light. I don't expect you to agree with us, but I really believe things between our 2 sides could and would go better smoother and farther, if you understood us. And I am quite sure that same could be said of you on the other side as well.


Once again, I wish you and your family a safe and happy holiday season.

[Paladin]

113. Well Said, Beevul (n/t)

[michreject]

72. Except for the two that I carry on me

All my guns are at home resting peacefully, not on the street.

[slackmaster]

80. Mine are all locked up in a bigass safe

Guarded by two highly trained Attack Cats.

[michreject]

83. Our guns are social rejects

Not on the streets running around. Tucked in at a reasonable hour. They behave better than me.:blush:

[spanone]

92. you carry two guns on your person? brilliant

:sarcasm:

[michreject]

95. Yes

A 1911 in a inside the waist holster and a Keltec P3AT in my front pocket.

[Tejas]

87. so.....Richardson sucks and is a rabid gun nut? (if all else fails, lie)

"against even rational gun control"

clue: he voted FOR the AWB.

[benEzra]

48. "Surrendered"??? Being pro-choice on guns is the traditional Dem position.

The Dems Surrendered On That Issue Decades Ago

"Surrendered"??? Being pro-choice on guns is the traditional Dem position. It wasn't until the DLC started pushing bans on nonhunting guns in the early '90s, ostensibly as a way to appeal to affluent, right-leaning "law and order" types, that the party became closely identified with the repubs at the Brady Campaign...

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Gun-owning Dems have always been part of the party base (blue-collar union members have one of the highest gun-ownership rates in the nation), and failure by some gun-404 party strategists in the '90s to recognize that, contributed to the '94, '00, and '04 losses to varying degrees.

Though I think even if every Dem who ever supported gun control retired from politics
the NRA would still back the Repiglickins every time, because the Repiggies start wars,
and wars use a lot more guns and ammo than all the NRA members could ever dream of.

The Senate was retaken in '06 by PRO-GUN DEMS, who beat pro-gun repubs in swing states among heavily gun-owning voters. I think you're being overly pessimistic.

FWIW, the NRA (which is probably far less relevant to the gun vote than you think) endorsed our pro-gun Dem for NC governor, as well as most of our Dem state government.

----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[saigon68]

68. (blue-collar union members have one of the highest gun-ownership

Yes and this week 750,000 deer hunters in WI paid between $28.00 and $45.00 to renew the annual "Hunt for the hungry"

The one issue in WI that will sink Hillary is this issue. Kerry won my state by less than 50,000 votes.

You won't believe how many people near me vote for the PUKES because of this one issue

[Tejas]

88. opposite end of the spectrum: McCarthy's supporters are mostly union.

The union members that contribute most to McCarthy (introduced HR1022) are workers in the textile industry. Clothing, seamstresses etc.

[Tejas]

65. apparently Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Biden didn't get the memo

Welcome to the present.

[Paladin]

74. Yeah, Congressman McCarthy Has A Lot Of Goddamned Nerve,

....being for restrictions on guns, now doesn't she? One husband dead and one son severely wounded by yet another lunatic with a firearm. I mean, where does she get off, opposing your views?

Unbelievable.....

[Tejas]

85. especially as clueless as she is........

......when the fact remains that she has no idea on earth what the legislation she's promoting even means.

[Tejas]

89. video of clueless bordering on vendetta...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

[slackmaster]

103. There is a disconnect between what happened to her husband and what she wants to ban

She's not running on logic.

[Speaker]

43. Ummmmm....not all the time.

The Gun Issue is the Gift That Keeps on Giving for the Repiggies

People forget that Daddy bush, in addition to the "read my lips" statement also issued an executive order banning the importation of many semi-automatic firearms. The "base" abandoned Daddy bush.

President Clinton then made the huge mistake of signing the "assault weapons" ban which gave the congress to the goose steppers.

If you want to see how to gain more seats in the Senate see James Webb, John Tester, etc.

[krispos42]

59. The DC ban was ruled unconstitutional...

by the 1st Court of Appeals. The DC mayor decided to appeal to the Supremes.

And it's not the fault of the various gun-rights groups that the Dem's party platform on the issue is contradictory, abritrary, useless, and blatantly pandering. The Dem's party platform preys on the ignorance of the general population about firearms to get laws passed that the politicians can thump the podium about to show they are on "tough on crime".

Why WOULDN'T the "gun nuts" take to the polls to punish Dems? The Dem party platform inhibits the rights and privilages of gun owners. Don't YOU take to the polls to punish the Republicans for a laundry list of what you see are offenses? Dems should not be held accountable to the voters for how they behave? Jeez, look at how many people want to see Lieberman or Pelosi get wiped out in the next election because of how they've behaved in the past year.

In truth, the anti-gun Dems are doing the work of the corportist/proto-fascist Republican neocons. Fascists like to disarm the population, and the neocons have the lapdog Democrats to do it for them and take all the political heat.

[slackmaster]

84. City could have avoided the whole thing by issuing a permit to Mr. Heller

It's all kind of ironic.

[jody]

14. Sorry the 2nd does not grant RKBA but it does obligate government to protect the natural, inherent,

inalienable right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Either that or RKBA is protected by the 9th Amendment.

[derby378]

16. Good catch!

:hi:

[leftynyc]

37. As the 9th just says

that all our rights are not enumerated in the bill of rights, I'm not sure where you're going with this. And the end result of the 2nd gives the individual the right to self defense (and property). It's a losing issue for the dems and they should stand back on this one.

[Speaker]

45. You are going to get beat up for this.

99 44/100ths percent of Americans don't have a functional understanding of the Constitution. That's why you constantly hear the phrase "where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to..."

They do not understand that unalienable rights precede the Constitution.
That the Constitution is a contract between "we the people" to create a government.
That the Constitution was created to give the government powers.
That the Constitution was created to specifically deny the government powers to step on certain rights.
If the Constitution does not give the government the power to do something, it cannot do it.
"Congress shall make no law" is not as strong a prohibition as "shall not be infringed," which is why "shall not be infringed" does not need to be "incorporated."

etc.

I wish you well in your mission to educate the public about the Constitution and unalienable rights.

[napi21]

2. Why do you think any resident of DC should be barred from owning

a gun? I hve quite a few guns. All of them are in a secured and hidden safe. I only take them out once in a while to go to the range to target shoot. If I lived in DC, I wouldn't be allowed to own them. WHY is that OK?

[Dr Fate]

35. The OP never said one way or the other-it's just the text of an article.

n/t

[demnan]

3. This is outrageous!

Do the people of Washington, DC have no right at all to decide what is best for their local jurisdiction?

Taxation without representation indeed.

[Tarc]

5. Would you apply that same logic to abortions?

[leftynyc]

12. The constiution gives the right to bear arms

YOu don't have to have one or even like guns but the government shouldn't be able to stop anyone from legally buying a firearm.

And frankly, after this administration and seeing what it is capable of, I'm surprised more progressives aren't running to arm themselves.

[jody]

17. Sorry, the Constitution does not give the right to bear arms, see post #14. n/t

[Speaker]

49. You are really pushin' it.

Good on ya'.

[sweetladybug]

28. leftynyc, I agree with you. I think EVERY good Democrat needs to

own at least one gun after seeing what this administration has done the people of our country. But, I think gun owners should abide by gun laws if the choice to own a gun. And some people should not be allowed to own a gun IF they are crazy and not mentally fit to own one.

[leftynyc]

36. Total agreement

The 2nd can be interpreted many ways. But I believe it gives each individual the right to protect themselves and their homes. I have no problem with licensing, waiting periods and extensive backround checks.

[slackmaster]

13. They have a right to control what is in their own homes, not their neighbors'

Here in California state law prohibits localities from making up their own gun laws. The state regulates firearms, which is what I believe was within the original intent of the Second Amendment.

[jody]

19. Would the 14th Amendment affect your belief?

:hi:

[depakid]

21. The 2nd Amendment isn't incorporated into the 14th

Not yet, anyway.

The 9th Amendment argument is an interesting one- but I seriously doubt that this court would consider breathing life into that. They'd just as soon is didn't exist at all.

[jody]

22. SCOTUS has avoided applying the 14th to RKBA which is a problem because government recognizes RKBA

as a civil right.

[Recursion]

32. Does the DC government have the right to abridge any civil right, in your opinion?

Or just the civil right to keep and bear arms?

Not even going to ask how well you think the ban is working...

[Speaker]

46. Nope

Do the people of Washington, DC have no right at all to decide what is best for their local jurisdiction?

Such as making black people pick cotton for free?

[michreject]

6. Hot damn

:applause: :applause: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Trillo]

8. Interesting to consider the timeline of this review

along with the timing of HR 1955.

If anyone is curious as to the historical use of the word "militia", the OED unabridged (Oxford English Dictionary) used to have wonderful set of collected quotes using it. (not sure my copy is the latest revision)

[jody]

20. Good point re HR 1955 "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act". SCOTUS could

rule that law-abiding citizens do not have a right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and state.

Such a ruling would make it easier to declare martial law and a permanent presidency just as now exists in Pakistan.

That's :tinfoilhat: of course.

[derby378]

9. Expect both the NRA and the Brady Campaign to take the gloves off

This is definitely a :popcorn: moment in our nation's history.

[L1A1Rocker]

10. Roberts did say

during his confirmation hearing that the 2A was not settled law. I expect a broad ruling on this one. I'm also expecting Ginsberg to uphold the D.C. decision. We shall see.

[someone else]

15. Gun control is people control

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

[Speaker]

50. Agree.

I'm also expecting Ginsberg to uphold the D.C. decision

She has already ruled in the past that the 2nd protects an individual right to bear arms.

[jody]

18. Speculation! IMO SCOTUS would not accept the case unless the probability is near 100% that the court

would rule in favor of the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

What many people ignore is RKBA is primarily about self-defense and secondarily about defense of the state. Pennsylvania made that point in its first constitution.

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776

That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

And

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to give the right of self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR. PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

Either an individual’s natural, inherent and inalienable right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment as one of the enumerated rights or it is protected by the Ninth Amendment as an un-enumerated right.

Amendment II
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.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[-..__...]

24. This will be bigger than Roe v Wade.

:bounce: :woohoo: :applause: :headbang: :bounce: :woohoo: :applause: :headbang: :bounce: :woohoo: :applause: :headbang:

[CK_John]

26. IMO, The court will rule that this is a right reserved to the states and will issue the ruling after

the DEM convention and before the REP convention, thus setting up a 50 state issue for our candidate. Just another way to cause chaos at the wrong time.

[DavidMS]

29. Not likely

IIRC, the Supreme Court issues decisions in Late Spring. Conventions are in Late summer.

This is excellent and I would not be surprised if the DC ban gets weakened. This will have some significant effects on national politics. Namely, the NRA fear merchant act will be weakened by facts on the ground. Secondly, the American people by and large have decided that gun control means using both hands. If only the political elites in Washington would stop using it to get a rise out of their respective bases like giving six year olds 2L soda bottles and jumbo pixie sticks.

Whatever happens this could change the outlook of the presidential race.

[virginia mountainman]

27. I am feeling good about this too!

A chance to get this bear of our backs. But I am nervous of the timing. With Obama on record as wanting to ban semi-auto's and for registration, and Hillery's anit-gun comments.

What would happen, if a democratic frontrunner, starts railing against it LOUDLY. Much like Feinstein's comments on 60 minutes, and McCarthy's incoherent ramblings on MSNBC about her "pet" gun bans. Among others in our party, when ever they get a microphone in front of them, they feel that they MUST, go on the attack to 80 MILLION law abiding Americans.

Some in our party, could lock us out of victory....AGAIN.

[pipoman]

30. This issue must be settled once and for all

it has cost the Democratic party too many elections. It is time for it to be removed as a plank of this party's platform and for the party to abandon gun control as a national issue. Leave this issue to the states and bring rural and blue collar Dems back into the party.

[-..__...]

39. The gun control house of cards is about to fall.

I totally disagree... the 2nd amendment (nor any of the BOR), should be left to the states to decide.

Unfortunately (assuming a favorable decision from the SCOTUS), a ruling that recognizes the individual right to keep and bear arms will not be applicable to the individual States with this particular case.

The Heller case will however lay down the foundation needed to dismantle many (not all), existing state gun control laws.

It will take years and numerous court battles (hopefully within my lifetime), for this to happen

Looking to the future, 2nd amendment and RKBA supporters already have the Chicago handgun ban in their sights.

With any luck, that too will reach the SCOTUS.

[Recursion]

31. We'd like a voting representative in Congress...

...but we'll settle for making the city government stop infringing our civil rights as regards self-defense. For now at least.

[lancer78]

33. .

If the Dem candidates play this right, they could effectively remove one of the largest issues the repubs use against us. If I was Obama or Hillary, or any other Dem, all I would say is that I would support and adhere to the supreme courts decision. Without the gun-grabbing dem issue, we might get some more rural voters. That would help us a lot in swing states like PA, MO, TN, and OH.

[Laelth]

38. This is very unusual.

... and it makes me nervous. The Supreme Court has never established a scrutiny level for rights protected under the Second Amendment. So far, the Court has been content to allow states and the Appeals Courts to set their own policies regarding gun control. Why, I wonder, has the Court decided to take up this issue now?

I don't know, but I fear that the Court will find that second amendment rights are protected at low scrutiny, meaning that the government can take away that right if it has, merely, a rational basis for doing so. If you had asked me in 2000 whether I supported reasonable gun control, I would have said "yes." Now, fearing martial law and the collapse of American democracy after seven years of Bush, I'm having serious doubts.

:scared:

-Laelth

[boilinmad]

40. WTOGWJO????,,,,,

.....What Type Of Gun Would Jesus Own ?? Christians and guns.....interesting combination. Makes my head spin......

[brendan120678]

41. What's so odd about it?

Christians can be hunters, can't they?
They have just as much of a right to protect their person, property and family as non-Christians, don't they?

I don't think Christians are going to rise up in a new Crusade if suddenly they can all have easier access to firearms.

[krispos42]

62. Looks like a Glock...

[Paladin]

42. If You Guncentrics Get A Favorable Ruling From The Supremes

....it will be fashioned by the judicio-fascists on the court: Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. Once more, the only cause you seem to care about will be advanced by the far right wing.

Looking forward to the standard, candy-assed, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day" responses.....

[Speaker]

53. Freedom for others scares the crap out of you, doesn't it? n/t

[Paladin]

56. Completely Unresponsive To My Comments (n/t)

[spanone]

93. yea, the freedom to kill each other is frightening

[slackmaster]

54. You think a majority of your neighbors should be allowed to decide what you can have in your home?

I don't.

[Paladin]

57. Completely Unresponsive To My Comments (n/t)

[slackmaster]

58. I'm trying to avoid responding to obvious lame attempts at broad-brush smears lately

:hi:

[Paladin]

61. Yeah, Right...... (n/t)

[saigon68]

69. Hi Slack

welcome to the fight

[slackmaster]

70. Thanks saigon68

I've been personally involved in this one since 1989 when I made my first "Because the legislature is trying to ban this kind" firearm purchase. (Not my first firearm, just the first buy motivated by someone else's desire to prevent me from doing it.)

I think I've done a pretty good job of avoiding stooping to the kind of personal attacks the "antis" on this board rely on when they start losing debates. I am not perfect. I have a breaking point, but my policy is to keep it rational and clean.

[saigon68]

71. I agree with you.

In this part of WI hunting is a big sport. simple target shooting is as big a recreational pastime as fishing.

We are in the middle of the Annual Gun deer hunt and I am about to go out this am for a few hours on my back 40 to find Bucky

We have "Earn a Buck" in my county (Oconto). You need to first shoot a doe to then get to hunt a buck.

There is an over population of deer here in the last 15 years due to stiff $4,000.00 fines for poaching out of season and global warming.

This year in WI the DNR wants a 500,000 deer kill just to keep the population from getting bigger.

My neighbor who has 150 acres of soybeans, attracts herds of 50 -60 deer on any given warm summer night.

He is very anxious that I and my sons fill our Gun and Bow tags--(2 separate licenses)..We eat all the meat and have some made into sausage. It is very good.

[slackmaster]

76. We banned hunting mountain lions in California but still have enough deer to hunt

But nothing like you describe. Farmers would be SOL without hunters.

[saigon68]

97. Good season so far

3 antlerless deer and 2 bucks between 4 hunters. There are a lot of deer near my woods. 2 more days to go before gun hunting is over. Then its back to the bows.

[Paladin]

77. Ready To Bag Some Irony?

Maybe you don't realize it, but Slackmaster, like virtually all the rest of our resident gun activists, is no hunter. He, like his cohorts, favors the kind of firearms that are designed to kill people rather than game animals: pistols, assault-style rifles, and military surplus items.

I, on the other hand, have done a whole lot of hunting over ther years. Down in Texas, I probably bagged in excess of 100 deer over a period of several decades. I have a closet full of hunting guns, which I no longer use. The fact that I'm no longer involved in hunting certainly doesn't prevent me from wishing you and your boys a good hunting season. You see, I actually know what a good hunting season is like......

[slackmaster]

78. Read my profile

My collection is about 80% curio and relic bolt-action rifles.

Yes, they were designed to kill people and fight wars, as were swords. But that's not what I use them for.

I became interested in "assault-style" rifles only when the California state legislature started talking about banning them. I quickly noticed an unexpected benefit of semiautomatics: I am right-handed but have a lazy right eye so I shoot rifles left-handed. That is a major PITA with a bolt-action rifle designed for a normal person. The other obvious benefit is that ammunition like 7.62 Soviet and 5.56 NATO is generally inexpensive and easily available. The light recoil also makes that kind of weapon particularly suitable for teaching new shooters, which I do whenever I can.

Most of my handguns are curios and relics too - World War II or earlier. I also enjoy some oddballs like a modern replica of a Colt Old Army single-action, and my Dan Wesson .357 revolver with interchangeable barrels.

For my birthday please send anything designed by John Moses Browning. ;-)

I have no objection to hunting when it's done responsibly, just never had an opportunity to do it because of my circumstances. OTOH I have been deep-sea fishing a few times.

[Paladin]

81. Happy Thanksgiving, Slack

For all our clashes over the years and our respective eccentricities, you seem like a decent sort.

And deep sea fishing is a blast, but take my advice: avoid fly fishing for trout. Extremely expensive, painfully elitist, as complex as you're prepared to make it---and addictive as heroin.....

[slackmaster]

82. Thanks, for trout I usually use a drop-line setup that fits in a 35 mm film can

Plus a little jar of salmon eggs.

[Tarc]

64. Your juvenile argument isn't worthy of much else

other than the "clock" response. I support the right to own guns, including handguns. That conservatives also favor this isn't terribly relevant, and to oppose it on the basis of that conservative support is laughably asinine.

[beevul]

66. I'll bite.

Lets try some reverse translation here:

"People with attitudes like mine towards firearms, pushed a great many gun owners away from voting Democrat, through things like "assault weapon" bans, demonizing those gun owners that dare disagree with OUR definition of "reasonable restrictions", and in general because our deep feelings about firearms and our counterparts on the other side of the issue made us feel compelled to fight a culture war that pushed even MORE votes away from Democrats. Because WE did this, I now feel compelled to complain and pass the buck to...the right wing courts...yeah!! Thats it!! Even though its because of attitudes like mine that the supreme court is packed with right wingers, and even though clearly this issue is a loser for Democrats, I can save face, distort the reality of the situation, AND keep firing shots...doing my part to keep the fires burning in this little culture war in which I am too invested and will have egg on my face should I ever admit was a mistake, if I just say THIS:"





"If You Guncentrics Get A Favorable Ruling From The Supremes...it will be fashioned by the judicio-fascists on the court: Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. Once more, the only cause you seem to care about will be advanced by the far right wing."





Oh, and last I heard, it takes 5 votes in the USSC.

[Paladin]

75. Gee, All That Typing....For Absolutely No Reason Or Effect

n/t

[slackmaster]

79. I guess Paladin is disappointed that nobody said "a stopped clock is right twice a day"

Or "Only a lazy person allows his attitudes to be directed by who said what about something."

Or "Why should I give a flying fuck what those assholes think about it?"

[Tejas]

86. Paladin, correct...as in waste of time

Some are hellbent on succeeding in standing their ground, no matter what the consequences...even if it helps Republicans retain the Whitehouse.

[beevul]

90. Nor any denying of the point I made. N/T

[Supersedeas]

44. Justice Roberts mustering his political agenda??

[Indy Lurker]

47. A thought

If SCOTUS decides the second amendment protects an individuals right to own a gun, will the ACLU start backing gun rights?

[Somawas]

52. Hope so.

It's an issue the ACLU has been on the wrong side of for years.

[slackmaster]

55. Don't count on it

They'll write it off as a bad decision, as will everyone else who sees it as a "collective" right.

[ckramer]

99. Supreme Court should vote to ban guns

That's the only way stopping USA going to hell.

[slackmaster]

101. Fortunately it is not within their power to do so

Why do you want the Democratic Party to lose elections?

[ckramer]

104. If they stand up on principle but lose the election, so be it

But eventually people will come to their sense for the gun banning call.

[piedmont]

114. Ban them if you want-- I'll just make my own.

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/

[hollowdweller]

100. I hope they overturn it and rule strongly in favor of gun rights

This issue has lost the dems the last 2 elections in my state.

I strongly feel that had Clinton not passed that gun control legislation in his term that we would not be in 2 going on 3 wars now, we'd still have the surplus, the Soc Sec. shortfall would be being addressed and we'd be on the way to low cost universal health care.

[slackmaster]

102. Appeals court already overturned the ban

We want the SC to uphold the ruling.

[fshrink]

107. This thread perfectly demonstrates

how the timing of the "S"COTUS' could be politically inspired. Therefore that it is very likely to have been politically inspired. Therefore that it violates the Constitution, since it implies the dependence of the judicial branch on the agenda of a faction. As usual, the content has virtually nothing to do with the actual purpose.

[beevul]

109. I don't follow you.

The case was submitted for appeal to the SCOTUS when it was submitted. The SCOTUS then has guidelines to follow once it is.

Are they not following the guidelines as they are supposed to?

I don't doubt at all that the case may have partially been politically inspired, but I don't understand what you mean about the timing of the court itself.

[fshrink]

111. And I don't believe in coincidences in politics.

Particularly with the group of activists who have run this country for 8 years. Nixon's bunch looks like a group of 3rd graders in comparison.