Gun decision tomorrow

[avatar4321]

The Supreme Court is set to make the decision on the DC gun ban tomorrow. I hear Justice Scalia is writing the decision. Unfortunately, it might be a plurality rather than a majority.

[midcan5]

If Scalia is writing it that is interesting as he is about as fascist as one could get without donning the black shirt. And DC is sorta out there on their own so that adds a twist.

[5stringJeff]

If Scalia is writing the majority opinion, it's great news.

[Yurt]

If Scalia is writing the majority opinion, it's great news.

IMO, he is one of, if not the, smartest justice on the bench. to accuse him of fascism is a fackling joke, since when has scalia espoused any fascist views...midcan, that is an outright lie

Fascism is typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting laws and a strong, sometimes brutal militia or police force for enforcing them.[23] Fascism exalts the nation, state, or group of people as superior to the individuals composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, leading to a cult of personality and unquestioned obedience to orders (Führerprinzip). Fascism is also considered to be a form of collectivism.[24][25][26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Authoritarian_and_totalitarian_state

[avatar4321]

If Scalia is writing the majority opinion, it's great news.

Its not as good if he is writing a pluality opinion.

[Joe Steel]

If Antonin "Fat Tony'" Scalia is writing the opinion, it's good news for gun-controllers.

Scalia claims to be a textualist and the text of the Second Amendment clearly supports regulation and a collective, not individual, right to guns. The only way Scalia can "find" an individual right to guns in the Second Amendment is to put it there himself.

Will he and the rest of the RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) do it?

Maybe, but they'll give-up completely, totally and finally any claim to be opposed to judicial activism if they do.

[avatar4321]

If Antonin "Fat Tony'" Scalia is writing the opinion, it's good news for gun-controllers.

Scalia claims to be a textualist and the text of the Second Amendment clearly supports regulation and a collective, not individual, right to guns. The only way Scalia can "find" an individual right to guns in the Second Amendment is to put it there himself.

Will he and the rest of the RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) do it?

Maybe, but they'll give-up completely, totally and finally any claim to be opposed to judicial activism if they do.

Seriously, you've got to have reading comprehension issues if you don't see it's obvious that the general population has the right to bear arms. It's not that freaking difficult.

I guess there is no individual right to free speech either despite it being totally freaking obvious there is.

[midcan5]

IMO, he is one of, if not the, smartest justice on the bench. to accuse him of fascism is a fackling joke, since when has scalia espoused any fascist views...midcan, that is an outright lie

Lie? huh, read his opinions sometime. Man is scary for democracy and fascism is not an exact dictionary definition, it is a way of viewing the world. Anyone every wonder why fascism started in Italy?

"Justice Scalia spoke on these matters at the University of Chicago Divinity School in January, beginning with the ritual disclaimer that ''my views on the subject have nothing to do with how I vote in capital cases''; his remarks appeared in the May issue of First Things: The Journal of Religion and Public Life. They are supplemented by his dissent to the court's decision on June 20 that mentally retarded people should not be executed. Justice Scalia's remarks show bitterness against democracy, strong dislike for the Constitution's approach to religion and eager advocacy for the submission of the individual to the state. It is a chilling mixture for an American."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07E7D61031F93BA35754C0A9649C8B 63

[Nukeman]

If Antonin "Fat Tony'" Scalia is writing the opinion, it's good news for gun-controllers.

Scalia claims to be a textualist and the text of the Second Amendment clearly supports regulation and a collective, not individual, right to guns. The only way Scalia can "find" an individual right to guns in the Second Amendment is to put it there himself.

Will he and the rest of the RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) do it?

Maybe, but they'll give-up completely, totally and finally any claim to be opposed to judicial activism if they do.Well Joe hows it feel? 5 of the Justices decided that it is a "INDIVIDUALS" right to own a gun. You may want to try your reading comprehension class again.....:poke:


here joe a little enlightenment for you....



The Second Amendment is naturally divided into twoparts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keepand bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585,
p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English
as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement
of purpose. See generally Volokh



1. Operative Clause.
a.
“Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rightsuse the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in theFirst Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and inthe Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shallnot be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rightsthat may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5



the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia”
in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—
those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment asprotecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in anorganized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “thepeople.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that theSecond Amendment right is exercised individually andbelongs to all Americans.
b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of theright: “to keep and bear Arms.”
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret
their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of theEnglish Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionarydefined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for hisdefence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary
(1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter
Webster) (similar).

[Hagbard Celine]

What do you guys make of the words "well-regulated?" I've seen many claim that the right to bear arms is absolute, but is seems that the words "well-regulated" imply well, "regulations."

[Nukeman]

What do you guys make of the words "well-regulated?" I've seen many claim that the right to bear arms is absolute, but is seems that the words "well-regulated" imply well, "regulations."

Hag, for detailes of ruling please see the following link.

It is actually very good reading. (a little long but good) I particulary like that they sighted hystorical briefs and summations on all the wording

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[gabosaurus]

A huge victory for the gun nuts. Now you can have the best of both worlds.

http://i29.tinypic.com/2q3283m.jpg

[Nukeman]

A huge victory for the gun nuts. Now you can have the best of both worlds.

http://i29.tinypic.com/2q3283m.jpg

Why do you call second ammendment supporter "gun nuts"? Why do you have to be NUTS to own a gun? please explain!

[Yurt]

What do you guys make of the words "well-regulated?" I've seen many claim that the right to bear arms is absolute, but is seems that the words "well-regulated" imply well, "regulations."

and the supreme court agreed with you

[Monkeybone]

What do you guys make of the words "well-regulated?" I've seen many claim that the right to bear arms is absolute, but is seems that the words "well-regulated" imply well, "regulations."

I agree with it. I am sorry but no one needs a machine gun or military class weapons for hunting or self defense. that is what was basically said.

[red states rule]

What is bad about the decision is there were 4 USSC Judges who said we the people do not have the right to protect ourselves

DC had MORE crime AFTER the gun ban, yet libs refuse to admit they were wrong with disarming the law abiding citizens

[mundame]

What is bad about the decision is there were 4 USSC Judges who said we the people do not have the right to protect ourselves

DC had MORE crime AFTER the gun ban, yet libs refuse to admit they were wrong with disarming the law abiding citizens

Yes, well said.

[red states rule]

Yes, well said.

I guess I'm a bad guy because I didn't care how they ruled, I'm packing any way.

[mundame]

I guess I'm a bad guy because I didn't care how they ruled, I'm packing any way.


You and Senator Jim Webb's assistant ------------ carried Webb's gun right into the Congressional Office Building, set off all the alarms. http://macg.net/emoticons/smile22.gif

[red states rule]

You and Senator Jim Webb's assistant ------------ carried Webb's gun right into the Congressional Office Building, set off all the alarms. http://macg.net/emoticons/smile22.gif

Only an idiot would try to get a gun past the security. However, being armed does cut down on crime. You either stop a crime, or you take out a criminal

[avatar4321]

I agree with it. I am sorry but no one needs a machine gun or military class weapons for hunting or self defense. that is what was basically said.

you might if people are going to lynch you..

[Little-Acorn]

no one needs a machine gun or military class weapons for hunting or self defense.

Scalia pointed out that the second part of the 2nd amendment ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.") is a command, and that it is neither restricted nor expanded by the first part ("A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,"). He stated flatly that the first part is merely an explanation, and does not modify or qualify the command at all.

And the best news is, the command issued by the second part ("the RPKBA shall not be infringed.") is also not to be modified by judgements of irrelevant persons such as yourself, on what the rest of us "need". If I think I need an M16 or whatever, my right to own and carry it cannot be taken away or restricted. And whether YOU think I need one or not, is unimportant.

Scalia pointed out that this ruling does not affect other restrictions on guns, it only strikes down the DC law. But the rest of the language he put into this Opin9ion of the Court, lays the groundwork for subsequent cases to challenge nearly every other so-called "gun control" law in the country.

Even though it directly affects only one local law, it's a landmark case, since it is clearly intended to be used in future interpretations of the 2nd amendment across the country, both for challenges to present laws, and enactment of future ones.

[red states rule]

Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly," John McCain

Every so often, McCain gets it right. I wish he would have more of these moments

[LOki]

Scalia claims to be a textualist and the text of the Second Amendment clearly supports regulation and a collective, not individual, right to guns. The only way Scalia can "find" an individual right to guns in the Second Amendment is to put it there himself.You were wrong when you first presented this argument. You're still wrong.

Time for you to level up.


What do you guys make of the words "well-regulated?" I've seen many claim that the right to bear arms is absolute, but is seems that the words "well-regulated" imply well, "regulations."It means well equipped and prepared.


I am sorry but no one needs a machine gun or military class weapons for hunting or self defense.Obviously wrong.

[mundame]

Every so often, McCain gets it right. I wish he would have more of these moments


You and Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer. I watch the Fox Panel every evening ( 6:40 to 7) and I am amazed how ANGRY these conservatives are at McCain: they hate his campaign. They think he can't speak, he doesn't say the right things, they think he's losing bigtime, and they keep SAYING it!!

Seems a little counterproductive to me, given that he's all they've got.

[red states rule]

You and Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer. I watch the Fox Panel every evening ( 6:40 to 7) and I am amazed how ANGRY these conservatives are at McCain: they hate his campaign. They think he can't speak, he doesn't say the right things, they think he's losing bigtime, and they keep SAYING it!!

Seems a little counterproductive to me, given that he's all they've got.

McCain is a liberal

Mundame, you said you are a Reagan conservative. CAn you see Pres Reagan saying corporations need to share their profits? Or supporting McCain/Feingold limiting free speech? Or supporting another round of amnesity for illegals? Or opposing drilling in AWAR?

Need more examples?

[mundame]

McCain is a liberal

Mundame, you said you are a Reagan conservative. CAn you see Pres Reagan saying corporations need to share their profits? Or supporting McCain/Feingold limiting free speech? Or supporting another round of amnesity for illegals? Or opposing drilling in AWAR?

Need more examples?


No, I don't need more examples: you are right, of course.

Boy, did ol' McCain ever get hoist on his own petard with that McCain/Feingold thing!

[red states rule]

No, I don't need more examples: you are right, of course.

Boy, did ol' McCain ever get hoist on his own petard with that McCain/Feingold thing!

and the libs are silent when Obama breaks huis pledge to take public finance

I rememebr how the left was so pissed when Pres Bush did the same thing, now they are silent when Obama does it

[5stringJeff]

Hooray for the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms!!! :firing:

[Monkeybone]

you might if people are going to lynch you.. a semi auto will hold them off just the same and you will aim better than a spray and pray. lynch come on.


Scalia pointed out that the second part of the 2nd amendment ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.") is a command, and that it is neither restricted nor expanded by the first part ("A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,"). He stated flatly that the first part is merely an explanation, and does not modify or qualify the command at all.

And the best news is, the command issued by the second part ("the RPKBA shall not be infringed.") is also not to be modified by judgements of irrelevant persons such as yourself, on what the rest of us "need". If I think I need an M16 or whatever, my right to own and carry it cannot be taken away or restricted. And whether YOU think I need one or not, is unimportant.

Scalia pointed out that this ruling does not affect other restrictions on guns, it only strikes down the DC law. But the rest of the language he put into this Opin9ion of the Court, lays the groundwork for subsequent cases to challenge nearly every other so-called "gun control" law in the country.

Even though it directly affects only one local law, it's a landmark case, since it is clearly intended to be used in future interpretations of the 2nd amendment across the country, both for challenges to present laws, and enactment of future ones. well put Acorn, always enjoy your post.


Obviously wrong.
i'm not saying that they cna't have it. i have no problem with collectors and ppl buying them. if they want it that fine, that's why you have to have a special license.

i am just talking about the ppl that think you should be able to buy them as easy as a shotgun. those are the 'gun nuts' sheesh ppl. way to bitch about an opinion of someone that was happy the way the ruling went.

[LOki]

i'm not saying that they cna't have it. i have no problem with collectors and ppl buying them. if they want it that fine, that's why you have to have a special license.To what purpose does this requirement for a "special license" serve?


i am just talking about the ppl that think you should be able to buy them as easy as a shotgun.What, precisely is wrong with those people?


those are the 'gun nuts' sheesh ppl. way to bitch about an opinion of someone that was happy the way the ruling went.Repost this when you've sobered up.

[Nukeman]

To what purpose does this requirement for a "special license" serve?

What, precisely is wrong with those people?

Repost this when you've sobered up.For what practicle purpose do YOU need a fully automatic weapon or grenade launcher? You really don't. Now this being said IF YOU want to organize a "militia" that is going to be "well regulated" than you can own these weapons for the "militia" but I don't see the need for individual ownership of a military weapon. YOU can argue all you want that its your right and it very well may be, but there is no other reason to have a military style weapon for any purpose other than to kill humans.

As I said IF you are in a militia than by all means the militia can own these weapons and keep them stored for training and defense this way your rights will not be infringed upon because YOU keep your own weapons and military style weapons are kept for YOUR militia.

Befiore you go off on one of your little rants I am all for the second ammendment and I believe in full ownership of guns, I just don't understand WHY somone needs a fully automatic weapon. I for one am a much better aim with a semi auto than I could possible be with a full auto.... If your not the government EVERY SHOT HAS TO COUNT!!!

[5stringJeff]

For what practicle purpose do YOU need a fully automatic weapon or grenade launcher? You really don't. Now this being said IF YOU want to organize a "militia" that is going to be "well regulated" than you can own these weapons for the "militia" but I don't see the need for individual ownership of a military weapon. YOU can argue all you want that its your right and it very well may be, but there is no other reason to have a military style weapon for any purpose other than to kill humans.

As I said IF you are in a militia than by all means the militia can own these weapons and keep them stored for training and defense this way your rights will not be infringed upon because YOU keep your own weapons and military style weapons are kept for YOUR militia.

Befiore you go off on one of your little rants I am all for the second ammendment and I believe in full ownership of guns, I just don't understand WHY somone needs a fully automatic weapon. I for one am a much better aim with a semi auto than I could possible be with a full auto.... If your not the government EVERY SHOT HAS TO COUNT!!!

Who defines "need?" Until Thursday, the Big Brother DC government determined that no DC citizen "needed" a handgun in their possession, period. Obviously, that flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment.

In the late 18th century, the arms that people owned were dual use, both for personal AND militia duty. So I see nothing wrong with people owning individually-operated automatic weapons. After all, if militias were in place to counter the army of a potentially tyrannical government, why shouldn't citizens own weapons that instill fear in a potential tyrant?

[Nukeman]

Who defines "need?" Until Thursday, the Big Brother DC government determined that no DC citizen "needed" a handgun in their possession, period. Obviously, that flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment.

In the late 18th century, the arms that people owned were dual use, both for personal AND militia duty. So I see nothing wrong with people owning individually-operated automatic weapons. After all, if militias were in place to counter the army of a potentially tyrannical government, why shouldn't citizens own weapons that instill fear in a potential tyrant?Jeff, I agree with you! However we do need some mechanism in place to keep the "nuts" from obtaining these types of weapons if we don't than we will be looking at a ban because of the lunatics that will use these for improper use. IMHO.

[LOki]

For what practicle purpose do YOU need a fully automatic weapon or grenade launcher?Irrelevent.


You really don't.Prove this.


Now this being said IF YOU want to organize a "militia" that is going to be "well regulated" than you can own these weapons for the "militia" but I don't see the need for individual ownership of a military weapon.I understand you can't see the need; can you prove there's no need?


YOU can argue all you want that its your right and it very well may be,...It obviously is.


...but there is no other reason to have a military style weapon for any purpose other than to kill humans.Irrelevent.


As I said IF you are in a militia...And I am..as are you.


...than by all means the militia can own these weapons and keep them stored for training and defense this way your rights will not be infringed upon because YOU keep your own weapons and military style weapons are kept for YOUR militia.The right expressed by the 2nd clearly protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms...NOT the militia's right.


Befiore you go off on one of your little rants I am all for the second ammendment and I believe in full ownership of guns, I just don't understand WHY somone needs a fully automatic weapon.You lack of understanding is completely irrelevent--it is certainly no reason, WHAT-SO-EVER, to declare no-one needs a fully automatic weapon.

Little rant over.

[5stringJeff]

Jeff, I agree with you! However we do need some mechanism in place to keep the "nuts" from obtaining these types of weapons if we don't than we will be looking at a ban because of the lunatics that will use these for improper use. IMHO.

There are already prohibitions against mentally ill people owning handguns.