Second Amendment Decision

[Mr.Metak2you]

Originally Posted by ganeil

I think today's ruling does call into question laws that require trigger locks if those laws, render any lawful firearm in the home inoperable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

If that were true, that would have been called into question long before this decision was made all over the country where it is already legal to own a gun but there are gun safety laws requiring safety locks.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

If that were true, that would have been called into question long before this decision was made all over the country where it is already legal to own a gun but there are gun safety laws requiring safety locks.

The quotes below are taken directly from the opinion issued today (emphasis mine):

We must also address the District’s requirement (as
applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the
home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This
makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitu-
tional.

... we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful fire-
arm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense.

[ideliver]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

This decision will likely not end here. D.C. has promised to appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary. This opens up a very important legal debate over the Second Amendment with huge national implications. Keep an eye on this one. You'll be seeing and hearing a lot more about it.

a little too much

[ideliver]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

Huzzah! <shooting gun into air, because it's fun>

What percentage of gun enthusiasts actually care about other parts of the constitution?

Me...and all of my friends

But... I have been re-reading the text of the constitution and I cannot find the part that grants a "right" to an abortion...the "right" to bear arms is pretty clear...even for a dumb OBG like me

[ideliver]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

I'm sure some southern Dems are gun proponents, though.

And Ohio Governor Ted Strictland (D)and Ohio 17th distrcit Rep Tim Ryan (D) and many other Ohio dems...and many (most) PA dems..

[ideliver]

Make no mistake...the right to gun ownership goes beyond home defense and military use...

Read about the West Virginia Mine Wars...

http://www.wvculture.org/hiStory/minewars.html

[ATG]

Originally Posted by ganeil

I have supported the ACLU in the past when I believed they were on the right side of a constitutional issue. Sadly their track record of late has been to pervert rather than uphold the original meaning of the Constitution.

You mean they are on the left side now?

[Pappy]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Just picture every Joe Shmo and his brother on a crowded DC Metro train packin a handgun. Gives you kind of warm feeling inside doesn't it?

Yeah, which will the bad guy try to rob????

[scottwww]

From the New York Times article:

Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights

The Constitution’s framers were afraid that the new federal government would disarm the populace, as the British had tried to do, Justice Scalia said.
~
“Nothing in our opinion,” Justice Scalia said, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
~
President Bush welcomed the decision. “As a longstanding advocate of the rights of gun owners in America, I applaud the Supreme Court’s historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms,” the president said in a statement.
~
Senator McCain called the decision “a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States” that “ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Senator Obama, who like Senator McCain has been on record as supporting the individual-rights view, said the ruling would “provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.” He praised the decision both for its endorsement of the individual-rights view and for its description of the right as “not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

[Icedog_16]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

Just had to re-state that. I guess other rights aren't as thrilling as shooting a gun.

Scotty, you a member of the ACLU, that you're such a vehement supporter of the constitution?

Attachment 164762

Please tell me that your joking using that article as a reference to or to legitimize the ACLU's defense of Constitutional rights. You are joking, right?

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by ATG

You mean they are on the left side now?

I think they were always a left wing organization but occasionally they were correct in their interpretation of constitutional issues.

[scottwww]

Isn't Justice Ruth Bader Gizburg the chief ACLU advocate?

[scottwww]

This looked interesting, so thought I would copy to here:

Originally Posted by Quoth_the_Raven

Obama Linked To Gun Control Efforts

By: Kenneth P. Vogel

***

[b]efore [Obama] became a national political figure, he [Obama] sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated [anti-gun ownership] positions. The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.” Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation… paid him [Obama] more than $70,000 in directors fees….

* * * In his appeal to gun owners, Obama has not emphasized his own legislative record, which includes supporting a ban on semiautomatic weapons and concealed weapons, and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month…. [Additionally, a] questionnaire filled out during his 1996 state Senate bid under his [Obama’s] name [indicated] that he supports banning “the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” [Obama later claimed that his answer on the questionnaire was a clerical error on the part of his staff].

* * * [T]he Joyce Foundation in 1999 awarded $84,000 to the Chicago-Kent College of Law for a symposium on the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to bear arms, but rather only a state’s right to arm its militia.

* * * During Obama’s time on the Joyce board, though, the foundation gave seven grants totaling more than $2.5 million to a group that wants Congress to take much more proactive action: the Violence Policy Center. The D.C.-based nonprofit, which calls itself “the most aggressive group in the gun control movement,” for years has argued for a national handgun ban. In a 2000 study called “Unsafe in Any Hands: Why America Needs to Ban Handguns,” the group [the Violence Policy Center] concluded that Congress could and should ban handguns nationwide “soon” and allocate $16.25 billion to buy back the 65 million handguns it estimated were then owned by civilians. The study [“Unsafe in Any Hands…”] dismissed as “pure myth” the theory that the Second Amendment bars such strict gun control laws. The study was funded partly by the Joyce Foundation, said Josh Sugarmann, the center’s executive director.

* * * [i]n 2000, the foundation also awarded a $20,000 grant to a publishing group to support Sugarmann’s book, “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.” And in 2002, Joyce gave $10,000 to a nonprofit group called Handgun-Free America. The purpose of the grant was “to support a student grass-roots gun violence prevention campaign.” But the organization billed itself as “dedicated to ending the handgun epidemic in America through the sensible act of banning private handgun ownership.”

* * * In light of the above, and Obama’s WEAK statements following the release of the Heller decision, today, I suppose it is safe to assume that Obama fill follow the conventional path(s) of the Left.

[scottwww]

from politico

Originally Posted by NomDePlume2008

Obama endorses complete ban on manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois.

[Campaign issues clarification, blames staffer]

Obama endorses DC gun ban, calls it constitutional

[Campaign issues clarification, blames staffer]

Bans 2 Muslim women from appearing on camera with him at 2 Michigan events

[Campaign issues clarification, blames staffer]

A pattern has developed.

[Neurorad]

Originally Posted by scottwww

from politico

A pattern has developed.

Now you're just talking smack, Scott.

I heard McCain has melanoma. Good chance he'll die from it. How old is he again? Hard to shake that melanoma. I wonder what would happen to world stability if he were to get a recurrence of melanoma while in office.

Did you hear he has had 5 melanomas removed? Oh, you didn't know that? Well, that's the number that he tells us. We don't know the truth, as he's withholding his current medical records. Why is that?

Wow, The Oldest Elected First Term President.

If President McCain had recurrent melanoma, or a new melanoma, while in office, it would be a perfect time for the terrorists to strike. Is that what you want, Scotty? Terrorist strikes?

Don't give me crap that McCain isn't your candidate. You know darn well that you'll be voting for him.

Mr. McFourMoreYears is not a cancer survivor. You have to be melanoma-free for a LONG time to be declared a survivor. He'll be dead by then, if he lives that long.

[Pappy]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

If President McCain had recurrent melanoma, or a new melanoma, while in office, it would be a perfect time for the terrorists to strike. Is that what you want, Scotty? Terrorist strikes?

I believe the terrorists will strike regardless of who's in office....

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

Don't give me crap that McCain isn't your candidate. You know darn well that you'll be voting for him.

Why would I vote McCain? He's just another Democrat wearing a GOP lapel pin. One can bend over only so far before they fall down. I won't be taking that up by backside.

[Neurorad]

Info on Scotty's 'candidate':

1. Baptist minister
2. The 'Doctor' received honorary theology degrees.
3. Running for office because of 'God's Will'
4. Attended Liberty Bible College, and 2 other Bible colleges
5. Former FL Chairman of 'Moral Majority'
6. Friend and mentor of Jerry 'Kill the Gays' Falwell

I know you think all of these are positive traits, but it's clear that such a strong proponent of 1 religion couldn't possibly respect others' beliefs.

He's a great church leader (if you're a fundamentalist). Keep him there.

It's outrageously obvious that the Constitution Party is nothing but a veil for the Christian party. Which is odd, because I wouldn't think good Christians would be proponents of gun ownership.

[Neurorad]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

Don't give me crap that McCain isn't your candidate. You know darn well that you'll be voting for him.

.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

.

We all know that!

[scottwww]

JOHN McCAIN IS A LIBERAL GUN GRABBER

Nowhere is McCain's chicanery and duplicity more jeopardous than in the area of the right to keep and bear arms. On issues relating to the Second Amendment, John McCain is a disaster! For example, the highly respected Gun Owners of America (GOA) rates McCain with a grade of F-. McCain's failing grade is well deserved.

John McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 on March 2, 2004 that would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows. According to GOA, the provision would effectively eliminate gun shows, because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every "person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law]."

John McCain also sponsored an Incumbent Protection provision to the so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" bill, which severely curtails the ability of outside groups (such as GOA) to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.

In addition, GOA warns that John McCain supported legislation that would force federal agents to increase efforts in arresting and convicting honest gun owners who may inadvertently violate one of the many federal anti-gun laws, which punish mere technicalities, such as gun possession.

For example, if John McCain's proposed legislation were to become law, a gun owner who travels with a gun through a school zone or who uses one of the family handguns to go target shooting with a 15-year old could be sent to prison. And a person who uses a gun for self-defense could be sent to prison for a mandatory minimum of five years.

But there is so much more to the McCain madness.

I wonder how many gun owners and other professing pro-freedom Americans have already fallen victim to McCain's phony conservative campaign? Do they not realize that they are giving a rope to the hangman? And that they--conservatives and gun owners--are the ones who McCain will send to the gallows? What is wrong with the American people these days? Have they not been betrayed enough by these phony conservative Republicans? -H.L. "Bill" Richardson

[scottwww]

Chuck Baldwin graduated from La Porte High School in 1971 and attended Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac, Michigan for two years. After he and Connie married and upon graduation they moved to Lynchburg, Virginia where he enrolled in Liberty Bible Institute at Liberty University. He earned his Bachelor and Master Degrees in Theology. Chuck has also received two honorary Doctorate Degrees.

What is wrong with earning bachelor and master degrees? What is wrong with being honored with doctorate degrees? I'll answer it myself: Nothing wrong with it.