Author Topic: Supreme Court, DC  (Read 3248 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Castaway

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1105
  • Gender: Male
Supreme Court, DC
« on: March 16, 2008, 12:20:48 PM »
Tuesday, the Supreme Court is hearing a case that challenges the District's restrictive law that effectively disarmed its residents.  The challenge is from a private security guard that isn't allowed to take and store his pistol in his house.  On the good side, if the court upholds the challenge, the crime rate in the area will go down, if it denies the challenge, it sets the stage for other cities to enact a similar ban. 

Offline dukkillr

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3428
    • The Daily Limit
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2008, 04:22:42 PM »
Dont be surprised if the court rules in the middle.  The idea that no firearm law is constitutional seems unlikely.  The idea that the government can enact laws as strict as DC also seems unlikely.  Look for them to split the baby.

Offline Eric N.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 76
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2008, 01:32:05 AM »
Me thinks,this could SUCK!!   Big Brother and all.  And I dont trust him.

Offline Mikey

  • GBO Supporter
  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2008, 03:11:48 AM »
Eric:  I think this time Big Brother has sided with the gun owner.  BBC news (of all channels) last night had one hay of a good, objective report on what happened yesterday in court.  I think the court heard from the different factions, pro and con, and somewhat 'put it' to those against gun ownership.  The pro people used fact, those opposed basically used emotional arguements that could not be proven.  I believe one of the deciding wotes will be by Judge Antionio Scalia, a deer hunter............take it from there.

The court will re-hear arguments in June, but it sure looks gooder for us.  Mikey.

Offline deltecs

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2008, 06:00:59 AM »
Just a point of clarification needed so as not to be misleading to others.  The Supreme Court will NOT re hear this same argument or case in June.  The outcome of Tuesday's oral arguments by DC and Heller will be decided with the written opinion made public by June, according to everyones best time estimate.  I'm optimistic about the decision.
Greg lost his battle with cancer last week on April 2nd 2009. RIP Greg. We miss you.

Greg
deltecs
Detente: An armed citizenry versus a liberal society
Opinion(s) are expressly mine alone and do not necessarily agree with those of GB or GBO mgmt.

Offline Mohawk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2008, 07:50:10 AM »
  We have already received headlines here that "Americans Can Own Guns". 31 states are pro gun, 19 are anti-gun. Did not specify states. And the report came as I was watching cable WGN when the "Fuher" (Mayor)of Chicago was giving his arguement on gun control. You hardworking folks in Illinois and fellow hunters, one question, why do yall keep electing these people? My interpretation of his speech was that he was calling every legal gun owner a wife beater and criminal. Boy, that isn't something I want my child to hear after he just harvested his first deer!!!  How about they address social issues to deal with problems. Before you know it there with be a hammer control law. Baseball bat control law, and kitchen knife control law. How rediculous!!!

  Thank God we still have Americans in office that will defend the constitution!!!

Offline ncsurveyor

  • Trade Count: (24)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2008, 08:39:20 AM »
............... 31 states are pro gun, 19 are anti-gun. Did not specify states. ...............

The following states (via attorneys general et al) enjoined in favor of Heller:
Quote
TEXAS, ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, IDAHO, INDIANA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, UTAH, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA,wisconsin (filed individually and late)

The following states (via attorneys general et al) enjoined in favor of DC:
Quote
New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey

The capitalization was a function of the copied text and not meant to be an editorial by me on whose more important.

That's 31 for, 5 against, and 14 no-ops.

Offline dukkillr

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3428
    • The Daily Limit
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2008, 08:45:33 AM »
  We have already received headlines here that "Americans Can Own Guns". 31 states are pro gun, 19 are anti-gun. Did not specify states. And the report came as I was watching cable WGN when the "Fuher" (Mayor)of Chicago was giving his arguement on gun control. You hardworking folks in Illinois and fellow hunters, one question, why do yall keep electing these people? My interpretation of his speech was that he was calling every legal gun owner a wife beater and criminal. Boy, that isn't something I want my child to hear after he just harvested his first deer!!!  How about they address social issues to deal with problems. Before you know it there with be a hammer control law. Baseball bat control law, and kitchen knife control law. How rediculous!!!

  Thank God we still have Americans in office that will defend the constitution!!!
This case if more complicated than Can or Can't own guns.  It's not a yes or no questions.  Remember that the government can put restrictions of free speech under certain circumstances.  There are a variety of types of analysis.  This will likely find it's way into that type of thing.  I would expect a strict scrutiny test.  That would be good for folks in DC, and probably would NOT allow everyone to go out and buy .50 cal machine guns.

Offline GRIMJIM

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3002
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2008, 10:56:45 AM »
  We have already received headlines here that "Americans Can Own Guns". 31 states are pro gun, 19 are anti-gun. Did not specify states. And the report came as I was watching cable WGN when the "Fuher" (Mayor)of Chicago was giving his arguement on gun control. You hardworking folks in Illinois and fellow hunters, one question, why do yall keep electing these people? My interpretation of his speech was that he was calling every legal gun owner a wife beater and criminal. Boy, that isn't something I want my child to hear after he just harvested his first deer!!!  How about they address social issues to deal with problems. Before you know it there with be a hammer control law. Baseball bat control law, and kitchen knife control law. How rediculous!!!

  Thank God we still have Americans in office that will defend the constitution!!!

Unfortunately we live in the state of Chicago ( as opposed to Illinois) they raise state sales and property taxes and most of the money goes to the upper right corner of the state. I am embarassed to even tell people I meet down south hunting that I'm from the Chicago area. They don't like us much in the rest of the state as you can imagine. The democratic machine is so entrenched in the city that any republican doesn't stand much of a chance here.

In a way I understand them, they are frustrated and rightly so, gun crimes in the major cities are a huge problem. However the logic they are using for their arguments is flawed, if you want to call it logic as opposed to just a knee jerk reaction. They try to distract us from the fact that their administration can't keep the violence under control and blame gun owners for the problems in their cities.

GBO SENIOR MEMBER "IF THAT BALL COMES IN MY YARD I'M KEEPING IT!"

NRA LIFE MEMBER

UNION STEWARD CARPENTERS LOCAL 1027

IF GOD DIDN'T WANT US TO EAT ANIMALS, WHY DID HE MAKE THEM OUT OF MEAT?

Offline jimster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2008, 11:27:43 AM »
Couldn't the Supreme Court just simply up hold the lower courts decision (that is is unconstitutional).....and just walk away from this?  Let the rest sort out the details?
Seems like this would be easiest and the best for all.  Plus we would get the affirmation that the second amendment is an individual right (which of course WE knew)
I'm hoping they just hold up the lower court and walk away from it, no further comments on anything, including regulations.  Let D.C. figure out how to regulate firearms,
and let them deal with thousands of people demanding their rights. 

Offline Mikey

  • GBO Supporter
  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2008, 12:22:09 AM »
Grimjim - they're democraps, whatcha 'spect??  We have the same problem in neu yawk, just reversed - we upstaters can't stand nyc and nyc hasn't been able to control crime one way or another and nyc types attempt to impose their ineffective morality and gun control progroms upstate.  One type of crime goes down and another goes up.  If the bad guys don't shootya the cops will (only now they can't killya, they can only wound ya - this ought to go over very well on the street). 

The state of chicago, like the state of neu yawk sity and the san fwansisco fwoating onna bay will all now face major class action lawsuits they won't be able to ignore and the result will be incredibly interesting. 

And if people like bloomberg, fienstein and whoever the major of dc is so thoroughly believe blood will flow in the streets as a result of this supreme court decision, then let them practice more until they are better shots.  My gawd, to think that bloomberg might actually teach his cops how to shoot (better).  .......................Mikey.

Offline Mohawk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2008, 07:12:45 AM »
    It makes you wonder about their common sense and the utter lack of deductive logic. The most violent cities have the most strict gun laws. And yet these "brilliant" people are elected to lead our society. It is much easier to blame lawful gunowners than the horribly failed long term welfare payments(Crack, cigarette, and beer appropriations funding) that they can not defend. Example below. She should be in prison for taxpayer fraud!!

Sharon Jasper has been victimized. Sharon Jasper has been rabidly wronged. She has become a Section 8 care case  "the victim of ever changing public housing policies.
Sharon Jasper has spent 57 or her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude. She has lived in Section 8 housing all but 1 of her 58 years. It was a legacy passed down from her parents who moved into Section 8 housing in 1949 when she was six months old. She has passed the legacy down to her children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits. She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana, ' I tried it for a year..you know,  working and all. It's not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year.'

Sharon was moved out of her St. Bernard housing project after hurricane Katrina and into a new, yet albeit, substandard quarterage. As can be noted from the above photo of her new Section 8 home, it is repugnant and not suitable for someone of Sharon Jasper's seniority status in the system. 'Don't be fooled by them hardwood floors,' says Sharon . 'They told me they were putting in scraped wood floors cause it was more expensive and elegant, but I am not a fool  "that was just a way to make me take scratched up wood because I am black. The 60 inch HD TV? It may look nice but it is not a plasma. It's not a plasma because I'm black. Now they want me to pay a deposit and utilities on this dump.' 'Do you know why?'

She has held her tongue in silence through the years of abuse by the system, but it came to a head at the New Orlean's city council meeting where discussions were under way about the tearing down of the St. Bernard projects. When a near riotous exchange between groups opposing the tearing down of St. Bernard and groups wanting the dilapidated buildings torn down and newer ones built, Sharon unleashed verbal hell with her once silenced tongue. The object of her oratory prowess was an acquiescent poor white boy in attendance. The context of her scathing rebuke was, 'Just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!' and 'Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!'

Recapping from the mental log of the city council minutes in her head, Sharon repines, 'Our families have been displaced all over the United States. They are being forced to commit crimes in cities they are unfamiliar with. It is a very uncomfortable situation for them. Bring them back, then let's talk about redevelopment.'
Sharon directs the reporter's attention across the street to Duncan Plaza where homeless people are living in tents and states that, 'I might do better out there with one of these tents.' She further lamented her sentiments about her situation,' I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor.






Offline deltecs

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2008, 08:31:58 PM »
To us simple people the 2nd amendment means that the right of Americans to keep and bear arms was not to be ignored by government.  The militia preamble to the operational clause, was meant to remind the Feds that a standing populace was armed and available to resist tyranny with unreasonable laws enacted.  The arguments presented to these Justices by both sides have so twisted Websters Dictionary, Blacks Commentary of Law, and political correctness, so as to be unrecognizable.  This is what these Justices will decide, as to enforcement of the 2 nd Amendment.  The outcome will have no resemblance to the intent, as envisioned by the founding fathers.   By looking at the States having an existing State Constitution at the time of the US Constitution, the term common defence (defense) is used frequently.  But, by today's standard, this term indicates a militia connotation.  The framers meant it for self defense, civic insurrection, hostile raids, foreign mercenary raids, and most importantly the means to resist a standing army to enforce government tyranny.  Defense of the common mans fundamental Castle Doctrine.  Not one of those issues was brought to the Justices attention in oral argument.  The application of a firearms effectiveness in a military position in response to Miller decision, weighed heavily toward each position.  But, and here is the loss, can individual rights to own, keep, and bear firearms as a fundamental right be limited for the sake of public safety, in opposition to other rights, like Miranda, illegal search and seizure, and restrictive carry.  This point was not even alluded to in the arguments, as precedent bearing on any rights.  All they discussed, was that what firearms types could be prohibited, while upholding a reasonable standard to comply with 2 nd.  If handguns are restricted because other firearms are allowed, the next reasonable law could be to limit multiple repeating rifles to single shot, to shotguns, to cap and ball, to flintlock.  They are all firearms and could be construed to meet the terms of the 2nd Amendment. 
Greg lost his battle with cancer last week on April 2nd 2009. RIP Greg. We miss you.

Greg
deltecs
Detente: An armed citizenry versus a liberal society
Opinion(s) are expressly mine alone and do not necessarily agree with those of GB or GBO mgmt.

Offline FWiedner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2008, 04:04:57 PM »
"Reasonable Restriction"

Get used to that phrase, because it is going to be shoved up the American "ideal" from here to forevermore.

The question that goes hand-in-hand with this verbiage (which people never seem to think to ask) is "Who decides what is reasonable?"

Will we abide by traditional process and use the time-honored standard of "The Reasonable Man", or will a new standard be manufactured to accomodate the political agenda of some unelected, arbitrary, and oppressive agency of government?

I'm sure that there will be some fanfare when the "decision" is made that "individuals have rights", and I'm also sure that folks eyes will glaze over and ears will fill with wax as they ignore the additional legaleze that says "at the convenience of the state".

The only victory here would be an affirmation of the unencumbered right to Keep and Bear Arms which is not subject to government regulation at any level or in any form. Anything else is simply accepting those new chains which our political masters choose to lay upon us, and groveling in gratitude as they pat us on the head and say "Now, run along...".
They may talk of a "New Order" in the  world, but what they have in mind is only a revival of the oldest and worst tyranny.   No liberty, no religion, no hope.   It is an unholy alliance of power and pelf to dominate and to enslave the human race.

Offline deltecs

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2008, 04:52:21 AM »
While I agree with the last post, I think the judges will decide that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute or fundamental.  Somehow, this intent will be twisted to meet the politically correct ideology of current times and respond to the liberal metropolitan cities high crime rates, as the excuse to ban or increase restrictive gun control.  I do think however, a decision which applies a reasonable standard of review to enact gun control laws, will have a huge impact in voter turnout and election issues in this Presidential race.  Anti firearms is not a major factor in most Democrats reasoning toward a Presidents election campaign.  It is a major issue with conservatives, so any bad decision from the judges, will ensure these conservatives go to the poll and vote against candidates opposed to pro gun ownership and possession.
Greg lost his battle with cancer last week on April 2nd 2009. RIP Greg. We miss you.

Greg
deltecs
Detente: An armed citizenry versus a liberal society
Opinion(s) are expressly mine alone and do not necessarily agree with those of GB or GBO mgmt.

Offline Mohawk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2008, 05:10:14 PM »
  I agree with Deltecs with the exception that I think the ruling will be ordered in a way that will demonstrate that the cities that are very restricted have overstepped their bounderies. I get the impression that gun owners will win more favor beyond what is considered politically correct. For instance, up until the early 90's carrying a handgun concealed was a political abomination. Now it is common place and legal, despite liberal thinking or opinion. In addition, I don't see the US Supreme Court making such an unprecedented decision based on a few city's local policies that would negate the importance of pro-gun states i.e. Texas with over 23 million people. And that is just one state. Maybe I'm being over optimistic but that just seems reasonable to me. I think the ruling will be based on the country not a few cities that only wish they were that important that have denied their citizenry their rights.

Offline alsatian

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 204
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2008, 08:56:42 AM »
"Reasonable Restriction"

Get used to that phrase, because it is going to be shoved up the American "ideal" from here to forevermore.

The question that goes hand-in-hand with this verbiage (which people never seem to think to ask) is "Who decides what is reasonable?"

The only victory here would be an affirmation of the unencumbered right to Keep and Bear Arms which is not subject to government regulation at any level or in any form. Anything else is simply accepting those new chains which our political masters choose to lay upon us, and groveling in gratitude as they pat us on the head and say "Now, run along...".

I respectfully disagree that the only victory would be a confirmation of an unencumbered right.  We do not have any unencumbered rights guaranteed by the first ten amendments -- not free speech, not freedom from search and seizure, not freedom from quartering soldiers in our homes, and not unencumbered rights to keep and bear arms.

It would be a victory to get a Supreme Court precedent confirming an individual right versus a collective right.

Sure, we will continue to see "reasonable restriction" gun laws which beg the question as to what is the standard of reasonableness.  In the present case, I think we are going to see a decision that reasonable doesn't constitute outright ban.  Similarly, some law requiring a $10,000 license fee isn't going to stand.  I don't buy that we are going to see an unending stream of unreasonable restriction gun laws passed cavalierly by various bodies that have to be challenged in the Supreme Court.  What will happen is that lower courts will strike the laws based on precedent, and if city/state government keep going back to the well futily someone is going to ask how much taxpayer money those clowns are wasting, and they will have to pay at the polls.  Additionally, I'm thinking that repetitive flouting of well established constitutional protections by law making bodies has probably been foiled in the past, perhaps when dealing with southern Jim Crow laws, and I don't think it is just going to be repeated over and over again.

A limited victory?  Perhaps but a victory.  If people in Washington DC and Chicago can own handguns and keep them in their homes, I'm guessing they would sure enough call it a victory.

Offline FWiedner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2008, 06:15:17 PM »
A right that is metered out or exercised according to the whim, conscience, or dictate of a government official or any other person other than the individual himself is not a right.

The government has no authority whatsoever, moral or legal, to dictate the rights of the People in this country.  It is the within domain of the People alone to tell the government what right they claim, and it is then incumbent upon the government to adapt its function to protect that right with all resources at it's disposal.


 :)
They may talk of a "New Order" in the  world, but what they have in mind is only a revival of the oldest and worst tyranny.   No liberty, no religion, no hope.   It is an unholy alliance of power and pelf to dominate and to enslave the human race.

Offline deltecs

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2008, 06:50:44 PM »
I somewhat agree, however some rights are fundamental and exist outside of government.  How I think cannot be granted or claimed as a right.  My natural instinct is to preserve my existence by whatever means available.  This natural right is extended as one of many fundamental rights RECOGNIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION, not listed as claimed by the people. 
Greg lost his battle with cancer last week on April 2nd 2009. RIP Greg. We miss you.

Greg
deltecs
Detente: An armed citizenry versus a liberal society
Opinion(s) are expressly mine alone and do not necessarily agree with those of GB or GBO mgmt.

Offline Mohawk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #19 on: April 01, 2008, 07:06:50 PM »
  In short, I think our fellow Americans of the Supreme Court, understand that there are over 180 Million legal gunowners in our beloved country that have not committed violent crimes and live peaceful lives. We work, raise kids, support a livelihood, and maintain a family yet we own firearms for protection, putting food on the table, recreation, and even keep that right as a symbol to the world that American citizens have the right to own firearms and that any nation in the world can look upon us knowing that it is the national resolve that allows us to shoulder such a responsiblility. It is deductive logic and it stands to reason that the most powerful nation, and most prosperous, in the world allows a private citizen to own, keep, carry, and under circumstances warranted, use a firearm for reasonable conduct.

   It is a common fact that if it were not for the 2nd Amendment providing for the citizens to own firearms the war of 1812 would have been a disaster!!! It all came down to firepower in Baltimore and New Orleans and the CITIZENS of the United States prevailed.

   

Offline deltecs

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2008, 07:21:25 PM »
Mohawk, well said. 
Greg lost his battle with cancer last week on April 2nd 2009. RIP Greg. We miss you.

Greg
deltecs
Detente: An armed citizenry versus a liberal society
Opinion(s) are expressly mine alone and do not necessarily agree with those of GB or GBO mgmt.

Offline alsatian

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 204
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2008, 09:09:22 AM »
A right that is metered out or exercised according to the whim, conscience, or dictate of a government official or any other person other than the individual himself is not a right.

The government has no authority whatsoever, moral or legal, to dictate the rights of the People in this country.  It is the within domain of the People alone to tell the government what right they claim, and it is then incumbent upon the government to adapt its function to protect that right with all resources at it's disposal.


 :)
FWiedner:  Be that as it may.  All of our rights are, in fact, metered out and have long been.  Again, the right to free speech is not unencumbered but is metered out.  You can't yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater.  Or, I guess you can, but you can be successfully prosecuted for this act.  Similarly, libel and slander limit your exercise of free speech.  Sure, you can print libel and utter slander, but you can be successfully prosecuted for those illegal acts.

Offline ncsurveyor

  • Trade Count: (24)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2008, 09:29:49 AM »
You can't yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater...............

Why would anyone want to, unless of course, there was a fire?

Offline deltecs

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2008, 10:38:23 AM »
A right that is metered out or exercised according to the whim, conscience, or dictate of a government official or any other person other than the individual himself is not a right.

The government has no authority whatsoever, moral or legal, to dictate the rights of the People in this country.  It is the within domain of the People alone to tell the government what right they claim, and it is then incumbent upon the government to adapt its function to protect that right with all resources at it's disposal.


 :)

FWiedner:  Be that as it may.  All of our rights are, in fact, metered out and have long been.  Again, the right to free speech is not unencumbered but is metered out.  You can't yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater.  Or, I guess you can, but you can be successfully prosecuted for this act.  Similarly, libel and slander limit your exercise of free speech.  Sure, you can print libel and utter slander, but you can be successfully prosecuted for those illegal acts.

This statement needs clarification on the limitations of rights vs injury.  When laws are passed and prosecuted for libel and slander, this is not a limitation on the right to free speech.   When one opens his mouth to intentionally injure anther's reputation or business, this is akin to assault.  It is not a limitation on accidentally bumping into a man on the sidewalk, it is assault, if one strikes him with intent to injure. This is the intentional action to wreck harm.  One can prefix almost any statement with "In my opinion" and not be prosecuted for the comment.  The same exists in abuse of other fundamental rights; any exercise thereof that causes intentional harm or injury to someone else is unlawful.  The use of a firearm with the intent to injure, harm, or enforce will over others are unlawful actions, that affect others freedoms without the presence of jeopardy.  This is completely contrary to the right to keep and bear arms.  There are already many laws on the books that limit the uses of firearms in actions that may or do cause harm to others.  We do not need any further restrictions on the right, as recognized by the Constitution.
Greg lost his battle with cancer last week on April 2nd 2009. RIP Greg. We miss you.

Greg
deltecs
Detente: An armed citizenry versus a liberal society
Opinion(s) are expressly mine alone and do not necessarily agree with those of GB or GBO mgmt.

Offline PaulS

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2008, 09:41:46 PM »
has there been or does anyone know when a decision by the supreme court is due and if it has been made what is was?
PaulS

Hodgdon, Lyman, Speer, Sierra, Hornady = reliable resources
so and so's pages on the internet = not reliable resources
Alway check loads you find on the internet against manuals.
NEVER exceed maximum listed loads.

Offline dukkillr

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3428
    • The Daily Limit
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2008, 07:31:29 AM »
has there been or does anyone know when a decision by the supreme court is due and if it has been made what is was?
Junish

Offline Eric006

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2008, 10:52:22 AM »
The Heller opinion could be issued tomorrow (June 25, 2008).  Check here for the latest info:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Eric

Offline Eric006

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2008, 05:23:12 AM »
Looks as though tomorrow (Thursday) is the day.  The prediction is that Justice Scalia will write the opinion.  Hopefully, a good sign.

Eric

Offline PHATINJUN

  • "Seeker of the Red Mist"
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (144)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
  • Gender: Male
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2008, 05:10:08 AM »
It only took 127 years but we finally got the ruling that it is a fundamental right to own guns. Kurt
Deceased 2/16/24
https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/machesney-park-il/kurt-heckman-11671764

Sportster17M2,20"Nickle410Tamer,26"410,
WTUTI12ga,WTU25-06,M158 22RemJet, 24"Ultra.204Ruger24"UltraFluted.204Ruger
M157Mannliker.22Hornet,24".223UltraFluted,   24".223Ultra,7X64BrenekkeUltra,22-250AIUltraFluted            7.62x39,22"303Britstub.32H&Rmag, .32303BritstubHuntsman,24" SS.50calHuntsman 58calHuntsman 12gaHuntsman
NEF RevolversSSModel73.32H&Rmag                     Blued Model73.32H&R mag The herd is shrinking!!
                                 "SOLI DEO GLORIA"

Offline Icy Straits

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Supreme Court, DC
« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2008, 06:33:34 AM »
I just finished reading Justice Scailias opinion, a very well written document that states the Second Amendment says just what it says despite the attempts to make it say something else. Great news.