"ALL IN" on the 2nd AMENDMENT???

[phrogpilot73]

In this morning's Washington Times, there is an article that says the Supreme Court would be ruling only on one issue in the case.

The court said yesterday it will limit its ruling to one question: whether D.C. laws "violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

That statement alone means that this is going to be a groundbreaking case. The way I read it is that they're essentially going to define "militia" leaving no room for interpretation by gun-control OR pro-gun groups.

 

[Son of a Grunt]

From what I see, this seams to be about residents of D.C. keeping handguns in their own homes. I don't see where they are also asking to carry their guns.

 

[statesman]

They are not. The CCW is a peripheral issue, just like Class III. However a strong opinion by the court suggesting the right of the individual shall not be infringed opens up a whole slew of questions regarding "keep and bear".

Later cases my suggest that "keep and bear" means carry on your person.

With regards to Class III I dont expect the rules on transfer will change, however it may allow an influx of serial numbers into the transferable market.

 

[A4sForever]

One thing that makes me chuckle is how people think this is only about guns. Please note how few people drop into this thread 'cause they think it's "firearms".

They're fools and sheep.

It's about individual rights and freedoms. Bill of Rights = All ten + of 'em ...

 

[statesman]

One thing that makes me chuckle is how people think this is only about guns. Please note how few people drop into this thread 'cause they think it's "firearms".

They're fools and sheep.

It's about individual rights and freedoms. Bill of Rights = All ten + of 'em ...

Agreed.

My hope, and expectation, is that this case will be decided in favor of gun owners. However if the court decides that the right of the individual may not be infringed they have implicitly ruled in favor of the entire bill of rights.

Meaning that they have defined the word 'people' to mean individual (which the circuit court already has, but having SCOTUS rule the same pretty much sets it in stone), but also they have ruled against censorship by solidifying the applicability of the BOR in modern society.

Many people believe that certain ammendments are outdated (ie number 2). [not me ofcourse] and if SCOTUS rules that these ammendments are just as applicable today as they were 220 years ago, they implicity champion 'original intent'.

 

[squorch2]

Meaning that they have defined the word 'people' to mean individual

Ah yes, the "plural = singular" argument.

 

[statesman]

Ah yes, the "plural = singular" argument.

as opposed to people = government.

 

[nittany03]

Many people believe that certain ammendments are outdated (ie number 2). [not me ofcourse] and if SCOTUS rules that these ammendments are just as applicable today as they were 220 years ago, they implicity champion 'original intent'.

These people need a course on natural law and constitutional history. I also challenge you, if using "amendments" in plural, to give me an example of which other amendments are "unpopular."

Fact is, rights are not given by the Bill of Rights. Rights are given by God, or by our existence as human beings if you don't believe in Him. They aren't gifts from the state to be taken away by Constitutional amendment. One of the great innovations of the American system is that the state is, in fact, a gift from the people to themselves, not its own end. It's sad when I see people viewing it the other way around.

 

[statesman]

I dont disagree at all. One of my favorite parts of the curcuit courts opinion in this case is their feeling to that exact end. however several people might disagree with us.

There has been an assault on the first ammendment recently with Clinton (et al's) attempts to censor the internet. Even some journalists want bloggers censored.

 

[Flash]

There has been an assault on the first ammendment recently with Clinton (et al's) attempts to censor the internet. Even some journalists want bloggers censored.

Huh?!

 

[HH-60H]

Huh?!

I was just about to say the same thing.

 

[raptor10]

Huh?!

I think he is referring this decade old "Communications Decency Act " Which former President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996
http://www.hansbjordahl.com/columns/censoringinternetisindecent.html

 

[Flash]

I think he is referring this decade old "Communications Decency Act " Which former President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996
http://www.hansbjordahl.com/columns/censoringinternetisindecent.html

Well, that is not exactly recent, it was signed in 1996.........and what President Clinton signed into law was passed by a Republican controlled Congress. A little lesson in passing laws might be necessary.......Ironically, much of the CDA was struck down by the Supreme Court in a case brought by, of all organizations, the ACLU. Thank goodness for the ACLU defending my right to surf for porn on the internets!

So, I still don't get what he was talking about?

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Fact is, rights are not given by the Bill of Rights. Rights are given by God, or by our existence as human beings if you don't believe in Him. They aren't gifts from the state to be taken away by Constitutional amendment. One of the great innovations of the American system is that the state is, in fact, a gift from the people to themselves, not its own end. It's sad when I see people viewing it the other way around.

I would contend that Rights are only guaranteed by, at the most basic level, violence or the threat of violence.

If Rights are given by either a)God, or b)"our existence as human beings" then how do you justify the fact the concept of "individual rights" is rather Western (Dare I say American?).

If Rights are given by a supreme being or by the simple existence of humans, then they would be universal. Pol Pot, Stalin et. al., Hitler, Chairman Mao, Kim Jong Il, etc... ad nauseum certainly would beg to differ.

Make no mistake, your "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is only guaranteed by your ability to physically retain those rights from those who would seek to take them away.

 

[statesman]

I was referring to Hillary's comments (about 6 months ago now, regarding internet regulation) Ill try to dig up the exact comments. But if memory served she wanted regulation on bloggers etc.