Supreme Court ruled today on the D.C. gun ban

The Supreme Court ruled today that the D.C. gun ban violates the 2nd amendment to keep and bear arms. Gun control advocates often posit the argument that it only applies to a "well regulated militia". The court ruled that this operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individuals right to keep and bear arms as well for personal self-defense.

An excerpt from the court today: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Currently in D.C., handgun ownership is not permitted, and rifles in the home must be kept disassembled and with trigger locks that render the gun non-functional.

Now the occupational hazards for would be burglars will be death, or if they're lucky and arrested ... jail.

:claps

I'm a girly boy who has a concealed-carry permit, so I'm getting a real kick out of this ruling...

It does actually say "well regulated militia" in the amendment, after all. Hard to see how they could miss that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scroller

It does actually say "well regulated militia" in the amendment, after all. Hard to see how they could miss that.

---

Militia - an group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joserchi2002

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scroller

It does actually say "well regulated militia" in the amendment, after all. Hard to see how they could miss that.

---

It also states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". Doesn't say those people have to be in the aformentioned militia.

The casae was really settle when DC's lawyer made his opening comments. The judges pretty much told him his statesments made a case of the militia and people being seperate. lol...

I'd love to see how crime rates change in DC when the laws are actually dropped.

---

Technically the ban is dropped. The D.C. police chief went before the media today. He stated that he formally submitted to the department for the development of procedures to be implemented for the immediate registration of handguns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InHouston

Militia - an group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training

---

Look how you again missed the "well-regulated" part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scroller

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InHouston

Militia - an group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training

---

Look how you again missed the "well-regulated" part.

---

And the rights of the people to bear arms will not be infringed upon. The Supreme Court ruled the 2nd amendment refers to well-regulated militias and the people. Not just militias. They didn't miss that. That has been debated in the courts for decades now. The Supreme Justices studied the history of decades upon decades of court cases and the works of scholars both pre and post 2nd amendment to determine this.

Isn't it about time we got rid of the 2nd amendment. I mean this IS 2008, not 1776, if I'm not mistaken...

uh oh...I'm gonna be ducking all those NRA bullets coming my way any minute now...

Great. Expect more school shootings and workplace shootings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hugochavez

Great. Expect more school shootings and workplace shootings.

---

you're right on the mark dude!

Mark another for the bill fo rights!

You wanna stop school shootings, give the school staff weapons. A teacher or principle should BLAST whomever wants to start another columbine.

time for the media to show guns saving lives from crackpots, rather than just the other way for a change. :P

ehhhmm...I do hope you are joking Trogdor

{sarcasm}Praise be to Allah! Now me and the members of my mosque gun club can go buy RPG's and AK's like our brothers in Afganistan! {/srcasm}

Seriously the right to keep and bear arms will always be infringed up to a point. I personally feel that the framers of the constitution wanted the populace to at least theoretically be able to defend itself from a govt. gone mad.... I really do wonder what this means for the other gun laws in the nation like the ban on firearms here in Chicago.

To all of my responsible, law abiding firearms owning American friends, I would encourage you to visit a site called torontothebad.com

Toronto Mayor David Miller is trying to get the Canadian government to institute a national handgun ban in Canada because of some shootings in Toronto. He ingores the FACTS that in every jurisdiction where a hangun ban has been put into place, violent crime involving handguns has actually increased: The U.K., Jamaica, Australia, Washington D.C., Chicago, ect. Two young men were recently shot to death in their SUV waiting for a friend to come out to give them something. Despite the fact Toronto Police have already said the gun used to kill these men was ILLEGALY smuggled into Canada, he continues to say the gun was stolen from a "so called" legal owner in Canada.

He will only come after legal firearms owners, saying we are responsible for the fireams issues in the city. He claims 40% of firearms recovered by Toronto Police were stolen from Canadian owners, even though Toronto Police own numbers place the figure closer to 5%.

Here's why the site is important to you: He blames America, and is actively trying to stick his nose in American politics to get the USA to change its firearms laws.

Visit torontothebad.com and read the crap Mayor Miller, and in particular a councillor named Adam Vaugh have to say about our American friends.

[quote="BrendaQG
I personally feel that the framers of the constitution wanted the populace to at least theoretically be able to defend itself from a govt. gone mad.... [/quote]

which is exactly what they intended! But that was a while ago.

Truth is that the majority of people don't know crap About this second amendment shit...You have to look at the historical background on the law in question. It does say a well "regulated militia" and also says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". remember that at the time of this thing the US was a young country and it was on its way of a constitution.Well, on of the things it lacks was 1.Unity or Uniformity and 2. An Army to defend itself from aggression. so the people that drafted the constitution decided that the people should have the right to bear arms....the problem is that the masculinity of a lot of men in this country relies on their guns and not on their balls. And i'm not against the NEED to bear arms i'm against how easy it is for people here to have a gun in some countries is very expensive and there is a psychological profile on the permit...of course these counties are far more advanced than the us...PEOPLE HERE DONT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS THEY HAVE A NEED TO BEAR ARMS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iloveshemales77

Isn't it about time we got rid of the 2nd amendment. I mean this IS 2008, not 1776, if I'm not mistaken...

uh oh...I'm gonna be ducking all those NRA bullets coming my way any minute now...

---

Dude, are you high on crack or something?

Get Educated

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."


"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
- Thomas Jefferson

.....

Virtually all those school shootings happen in "Gun Free" Zones. Hmmmm, I wonder why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Nino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iloveshemales77

Isn't it about time we got rid of the 2nd amendment. I mean this IS 2008, not 1776, if I'm not mistaken...

uh oh...I'm gonna be ducking all those NRA bullets coming my way any minute now...

---

Dude, are you high on crack or something?

---

Nope, totally sober and serious!

If you want teachers to carry concealed firearms, then you never had the idiots I had for teachers.

Even though the right of the “people” (which needn’t, until today, be read as individuals) to bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment, very little is said in today’s decision about regulation. The first amendment has always been read as giving individuals as well as the press the right to speech. Yet, being an in force constitutional amendment has not precluded speech from regulation. There are venues where you can’t say George Carlin’s seven words without paying an exorbitant fine. You can be sued for defamation. You can be fined for false advertising. It has yet to be worked out what sort of regulations are justified by this latest supreme court deconstruction of a constitutional amendment that had been well understood for seventy years.

Trust trish to supply the most thoughtful, informed and erudite comment on this matter.

awww jeez...

No, I'm not sucking up to her. I just happen to think that trish, along with Peggy Gee, is one of the most intelligent and informed posters in this forum. Just my humble opinion which, according to the first amendment, I am entitled to utter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scroller

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InHouston

Militia - an group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training

---

Look how you again missed the "well-regulated" part.

---

"well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of the times that the constitution was written, the definition of "regulated" meant "well trained" or "well drilled".

Scalia explains clearly that the prefatory clause(aka "well regulated militia") is not a limitation, but rather an explanation of the second, operative clause (aka "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed")


Scalia's majority opinion:

Quote:

---

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be re-
phrased, “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.”...... other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose...... Logic demands that there be a link between the stated
purpose and the command. The Second Amendment
would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be
infringed.”...... But apart from that
clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

---

Yeah, but Antonin Scalia is a right-wing torture-crazy death-penalty-loving gay-bashing reactionary twat.

Quote:

---

"well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of the times that the constitution was written, the definition of "regulated" meant "well trained" or "well drilled".

---

“Arms” doesn’t mean what you think it means either. The founding fathers thought arms meant flintlocks and knives. The initial intention of the founding fathers is not at issue. Their intentions can go no further than their own understanding of what an arm is or what a militia is or what a drug gang is. Every court interprets the constitution in its own unique way. Even near contemporary understandings are sometimes deemed irrelevant. This was the case today when the current court effectively said, “let precedents be damned.” Today we find out that not only is it important what’s written in the constitution, but equally important is who gets to interpret what’s written. The NRA might rail against activist courts, but today they are not so secretly reveling in the activism of the current court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Quote:

---

"well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of the times that the constitution was written, the definition of "regulated" meant "well trained" or "well drilled".

---

“Arms” doesn’t mean what you think it means either. The founding fathers thought arms meant flintlocks and knives. The initial intention of the founding fathers is not at issue. Their intentions can go no further than their own understanding of what an arm is or what a militia is or what a drug gang is. Every court interprets the constitution in its own unique way. Even near contemporary understandings are sometimes deemed irrelevant. This was the case today when the current court effectively said, “let precedents be damned.” Today we find out that not only is it important what’s written in the constitution, but equally important is who gets to interpret what’s written. The NRA might rail against activist courts, but today they are not so secretly reveling in the activism of the current court.

---

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Read the majority opinion, it shoots down your entire argument. Arms means EXACTLY what I think it means.

You seriously need to read the Federalist papers, specifically #46, where the reason for, and purpose of, 2nd amendment was discussed in detail.

Quote:

---

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we inter-
pret 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.” .... Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary
defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his
defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast
at or strike another.”....Although one founding-era thesaurus
limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments
of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source
stated that all firearms constituted “arms.”.....Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivo-
us, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not in-
terpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
.... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search..... the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.

---

'The Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding. '


So, like, bazookas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomfurbs

'The Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding. '


So, like, bazookas?

---

you can all ready own machine guns and other destructive devices like howitzers and anti-tank cannons in the US, you just need to pay a $200 tax to the ATF.

civilian owned 90mm anti tank gun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IeEa...eature=related

20 mm hispano:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc9E8...eature=related

minigun:

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

knob creek, world's largest civilian owned machine gun shoot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31vm3-BQRJU


couple more cool ones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8o4r...eature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd4gh...eature=related


America, FUCK YEAH

phosepete,

Right, right, right. Read the minority opinion.

The Federalists were a political party. Why should we take the political opinions of the Federalists as a substitute for the actual constitution? Their writings were just an attempt to put their own spin on the laws of the land. You seriously need to put down those Federalist papers.

Hooray for the Supremes and their decision on gun control. Oh yes, Iloveshemales77 you will not have to duck bullets from the NRA. The NRA represents responsible gun owners. It was only the responsible people that were affected by gun control laws. The criminal element didn't pay that much attention to gun control laws or laws against robbing banks or rape etc.

Xenicity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

phosepete,

Right, right, right. Read the minority opinion.

The Federalists were a political party. Why should we take the political opinions of the Federalists as a substitute for the actual constitution? Their writings were just an attempt to put their own spin on the laws of the land. You seriously need to put down those Federalist papers.

---

wrong again. The Federalist papers(written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison) were written before the Federalist party even existed, and they were written to explain and advocate the ratification of the Constitution to the country. The Federalist papers are not "opinions", They're written documents by several of the Founding Fathers themselves that help illuminate exactly what the Constitution means and what the Founders intended. The papers were written and published before the Constitution was even ratified, so they were hardly an attempt to " put their own spin on the laws of the land", as the constitution wasn't even the law of the land at the time!

You my dear, seriously need to pick up and read the Federalist Papers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

Quote:

---

The Federalist papers ... were written before the Federalist party even existed, and they were written to explain and advocate the ratification of the Constitution to the country.

---

touche'

It is not surprising the court which took it upon themselves to be the first to declare the presidency, has ignored two hundred years of precedent and upset the traditional understanding of the second amendment. The court could’ve easily found against the DC law without overturning the second amendment. It’s clear the court went out of its way to use this case to deconstruct the constitution. It’s a clear case of activism.

Some may find it surprising that even though I think the court deliberately miss-stepped in its decision today, I also think the DC law overstepped its rational bounds as well. I personally see nothing wrong with individual people owning guns and keeping them in their houses, whether you live in Washington D.C. or anywhere else in the U.S.

Gun ownership should come with responsibilities and it is the duty of government to insure that people live up those responsibilities. I don’t think we can do much to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But we can do a lot to keep them out of the hands of the stupid; i.e. we should make sure that people who buy guns are educated in their safe use. Before you can drive you have to prove you’re competent to drive. The same should be true of using firearms. The current ruling of the Supreme Court does not say anything about this sort of regulation. All that has yet to be worked out.

Frankly: what can you expect from a bunch of ultra-conservative judges nominated by GW Bush?

The NRA gratefully thanks.

tis a great day and the 4 who voted against need kicked in the privates

as a life nra member i am quite happy, but i'd still never step foot in DC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joserchi2002

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cockgobbler

To all of my responsible, law abiding firearms owning American friends, I would encourage you to visit a site called torontothebad.com

Toronto Mayor David Miller is trying to get the Canadian government to institute a national handgun ban in Canada because of some shootings in Toronto. He ingores the FACTS that in every jurisdiction where a hangun ban has been put into place, violent crime involving handguns has actually increased: The U.K., Jamaica, Australia, Washington D.C., Chicago, ect. Two young men were recently shot to death in their SUV waiting for a friend to come out to give them something. Despite the fact Toronto Police have already said the gun used to kill these men was ILLEGALY smuggled into Canada, he continues to say the gun was stolen from a "so called" legal owner in Canada.

He will only come after legal firearms owners, saying we are responsible for the fireams issues in the city. He claims 40% of firearms recovered by Toronto Police were stolen from Canadian owners, even though Toronto Police own numbers place the figure closer to 5%.

Here's why the site is important to you: He blames America, and is actively trying to stick his nose in American politics to get the USA to change its firearms laws.

Visit torontothebad.com and read the crap Mayor Miller, and in particular a councillor named Adam Vaugh have to say about our American friends.

---

It's funny you bring up the gun ban in the UK. I do that guns violence has gone down, however violent crimes involving knives have shot through the roof. Just goes to show you. People will find a way to hurt one another regardless of the law.

---

No, no, no. In the U.K., while it is true handgun related DEATHS have decreased since the ban, all incidents of handgun related CRIME - shootings, robbery's, home invasions, rape ect have actually INCREASED approximately 300%.

All that tells me is surgeons in the U.K. are getting more skilled at treating gunshot wounds.

In Jamaica, in 2006 according to Amnesty International, there was over 1600 murders. More than 1300 of them were committed by someone using a handgun.

Australia's gun ban has been such a failure, the new Prime Minister there is looking at repealing portions of their gun control legislation.

Look at the numbers provided by the main gun control lobby in the USA. I can't remember the exact name, something like the Brady Group (founded by President Regan's press secretary(?) who was left paralized in the assissination attempt on Regan). There own numbers show the states with the toughest gun control legislation, such as California, also have grime and homicide rates much higher than the national average.

Gun control is the only thing that has been a complete and total failure, yet people still demand more of it.

I haven't read this entire thread, it's an old topic. Here's my take on it:

If I was put in a situation where I needed to defend myself or someone else, I would like to have the option of shooting the bad person, with a gun. I have never owned a gun, but I support the second amendment.

I own a sword, but that really doesn't do much good in most situations. I suppose I could jab people with it, but I would probably just get shot by a gun.

:)