Equipped To Survive Equipped To Survive® Presents
The Survival Forum
Where do you want to go on ETS?

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#127748 - 03/19/08 12:52 PM Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending
benjammin Offline
Rapscallion
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 02/06/04
Posts: 4020
Loc: Anchorage AK
In case any of you missed it, the DC gun ban is now being deliberated in the US Supreme Court. I am not soliciting political opinions here. I do want to point out that if the court does render a decision, it will set a huge precedent regarding our right to keep and bear arms, and not just firearms.

I say this because if the decision upholds the DC ban on handguns, then it is likely that many municipalities will seek to enforce similar restraints, and expand such restraints to include all "weapons", including knives, like the knives most of us currently edc. It is not a big leap to make, as evidenced by the actions of other governments who've followed a similar pattern.

I know this is one of those subjects that begs for debate. Hopefully my statements haven't provoked a polictical discussion. I just wanted to give everyone a head's up.
_________________________
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

Top
#127753 - 03/19/08 01:32 PM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: benjammin]
OldBaldGuy Offline
Geezer

Registered: 09/30/01
Posts: 5695
Loc: Former AFB in CA, recouping fr...
I fear that the ongoing cases of nutjobs shooting up malls, post offices, McD's, etc, things are just gonna go downhill for us...
_________________________
OBG

Top
#127755 - 03/19/08 02:00 PM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: OldBaldGuy]
Dan_McI Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 844
Loc: NYC
I think that the Court pretty clearly indicated it will support an individual right to bear arms. it also is probabyl going to permit some restrictions. The amount of restriction is of course the question. D.C.'s ban on functional firearms seemed to be seen as overly broad in any case, but I could only be trying to read tea leaves.

Edit. One commentator I've read about predicted: "As it is though, under any possible construal of “reasonable regulation”; I would expect that the majority of the gun laws in California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Hawaii; would be in whole or in part, struck down."


Edited by Dan_McI (03/19/08 02:33 PM)

Top
#127761 - 03/19/08 03:05 PM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: ]
Dan_McI Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 844
Loc: NYC
Originally Posted By: BigDaddyTX
I'm just glad they're ruling on it in June or so, and my government stimulus check gets here in May.


Sounds like someone is getting ready to drool in anticipation at something blue and made with steel.

Top
#127767 - 03/19/08 03:33 PM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: Dan_McI]
BillLiptak Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 12/19/07
Posts: 259
Actually there is starting to be some debate as to wether or not to start allowing firearms on college campuses......seems like the argument that if there are no weapons allowed, as in no way to defend yourself, you are merely allowing a human shooting gallery to happen. One state has already started to allow it and several others are considering it. About damn time.

-Bill Liptak

Top
#127769 - 03/19/08 03:45 PM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: BillLiptak]
BillLiptak Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 12/19/07
Posts: 259
The article I read was in the Tampa Bay Times, Utah allows concealed weapons at all public colleges and according to the article 14 states are now considering allowing guns on campus. I'll cross my fingers and hope common sense and the second amendment prevail.

-Bill Liptak

Top
#127771 - 03/19/08 03:57 PM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: BillLiptak]
Stretch Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 11/27/06
Posts: 707
Loc: Alamogordo, NM
"What's this crap about taking fingernail clippers and other sharp objects from people as they board a plane? Hey...I think every seat ought to have a 9" Bowie sticking straight up out of the armrest for every passenger to grab hold of!" - Friend and resident of Washington, DC, 2002 (sells high-tech electronic surveillance equipment to every law enforcement agency in the nation, including those that monitor the White House and Capitol buildings)

Let's hope the Supreme Court justices (at least five of them) have similar mindsets and can interpret the Constitution in the same frame of mind as the men who wrote it and intended it to be interpreted that way.

In other words, get ready for a crime-rate drop in DC. (AND a reduction in the criminal element) smile


Edited by Stretch (03/19/08 03:59 PM)
_________________________
DON'T BE SCARED
-Stretch

Top
#127772 - 03/19/08 04:00 PM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: ]
Dan_McI Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 844
Loc: NYC
Originally Posted By: IzzyJG99
As I understand it the ruling won't affect ALL gun owners. It just defines whether or not someone will be allowed to own and carry for personal protection a firearm in the District of Columbia.


The Court does not have to address whether the 2nd Amendment restricts what the individual states can and cannot do in the way of firearms restrictions and regulations. However, the analysis I've seen indicates that it is likely to try and announce that 2nd Amendment rights are covered by the 14th Amendment, so the same standard will apply to the states. if and how they do this is going to affect the challenges that the states laws face, and it would be no big surprise if the Court told the Circuits and Districts, this is what we will do. Otherwise, they are inviting that as the next case, soon. it seems the Court doesn't want another 2nd Amendment case soon.

Top
#127774 - 03/19/08 04:24 PM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: Dan_McI]
Nishnabotna Offline
Icon of Sin
Addict

Registered: 12/31/07
Posts: 512
Loc: Nebraska
Here's what the NRA emailed me this morning:
Originally Posted By: NRA

Supreme Court Hears Arguments in D.C. Gun Ban Case
Fairfax, Va.-Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case the Court has stated is "limited to the following question: Whether Washington, D.C.'s bans [on handguns, on having guns in operable condition in the home and on carrying guns within the home] 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."

The case came before the Supreme Court on appeal by the District of Columbia, after a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the city's gun bans unconstitutional. The panel's decision was upheld by the full Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals decision--consistent with the views of the Framers of the Bill of Rights, respected legal commentators of the 19th century, the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), numerous court decisions of the 19th century, the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Miller (1939), the position of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the vast majority of Second Amendment scholars today-concluded that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

In today's argument, the Justices aggressively questioned advocates for all sides, including Walter Dellinger for the District, Solicitor General Paul Clement for the Department of Justice, and Alan Gura for the plaintiffs challenging D.C.'s law.

While it would be a mistake to predict the outcome of a case from questions at oral argument, some justices' questions clearly suggested where they stand-as when Chief Justice John Roberts, questioning the District's Dellinger, scoffed at the idea that a citizen awakened by an intruder in the middle of the night could "turn on the lamp . pick up [his] reading glasses," and disengage a trigger lock. Dellinger back-pedaled from D.C.'s longstanding position that its laws prohibit self-defense, claiming that D.C. actually supports citizens having functional firearms for defense.

Justices extensively questioned all three attorneys on the meaning and effect of the Second Amendment's "militia clause," with Dellinger taking the extreme position that unless a state "had attributes of [a state] militia contrary to a Federal law," the Second Amendment would have no effect as a restraint on legislation. Several justices seemed to disagree strongly with that view, with Justice Antonin Scalia noting that even if the militia clause describes the purpose of the Second Amendment, it's not unusual for a law to be written more broadly than necessary for its main purpose.

Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned the attorneys very actively, especially on the importance of self-defense in the Founding era. Justice Kennedy suggested that even the Supreme Court's 1939 Miller decision-which gun control advocates have often wrongly cited as protecting only a "collective" right-was "deficient" and may not have addressed the "interests that must have been foremost in the Framers' minds when they were concerned about guns being taken away from the people who needed them for their defense."

Plaintiffs' attorney Gura-in addition to responding to many hypothetical questions-noted that the Second Amendment was clearly derived from common law rights described by Blackstone and other 18th Century commentators. Although the militia clause "gives us some guide post as to how we look at the Second Amendment," Gura said, "it's not the exclusive purpose of the Second Amendment."

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox (who both attended the arguments) commented, "Washington, D.C.'s ban on keeping handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense is unreasonable and unconstitutional under any standard. We remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree with the overwhelming majority of the American people, more than 300 members of Congress, 31 state attorneys general and the NRA that the Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms, and that Washington, D.C.'s bans on handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense should be struck down."

Amicus briefs filed with the Supreme Court in support of the Court of Appeals' decision included those by the National Rifle Association and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund; Vice-President Dick Cheney (in his capacity as President of the Senate) and Members of Congress; the state attorneys general; and noted Second Amendment scholars. All the briefs in the case are available at www.nraila.org/heller .



Edited by Nishnabotna (03/19/08 06:40 PM)
Edit Reason: fixed borked link

Top
#127777 - 03/19/08 04:52 PM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: Nishnabotna]
unimogbert Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 08/10/06
Posts: 882
Loc: Colorado

Here's the transcript of the court session-

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

I think the biggest part of the decision to be made is whether the 2nd amendment will be "incorporated" or not. Incorporation is the concept that the rights listed in the BOR cannot be reduced by the States.

For instance, if the State of New Jersey only allowed persons who were born in NJ to vote in any election within the State they might be within their powers. Incorporation says NJ can't do that because voting is protected at the Federal level.

It's conceivable that the Supremes could rule that 2A only applies to the Federal government and therefore a State (County/City/HOA) level can ban anything they want to. This would be an example of not "incorporating" the 2A as a right.

It's possible that since the case is not over a State's regulations that the incorporation question will not even be addressed and we'll have the mish-mash in the rest of the country unchanged.

In that event it could be another 70 or 100 years before another clear 2A case could get to the Supremes.

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >



Moderator:  Alan_Romania, Blast, chaosmagnet, cliff 
March
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online
0 registered (), 301 Guests and 42 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
GallenR, Jeebo, NicholasMarshall, Yadav, BenFoakes
5367 Registered Users
Newest Posts
What did you do today to prepare?
by dougwalkabout
Yesterday at 11:21 PM
Zippo Butane Inserts
by dougwalkabout
Yesterday at 11:11 PM
Question about a "Backyard Mutitool"
by Ren
03/17/24 01:00 AM
Problem in my WhatsApp configuration
by Chisel
03/09/24 01:55 PM
New Madrid Seismic Zone
by Jeanette_Isabelle
03/04/24 02:44 PM
EDC Reduction
by EchoingLaugh
03/02/24 04:12 PM
Using a Compass Without a Map
by KenK
02/28/24 12:22 AM
Newest Images
Tiny knife / wrench
Handmade knives
2"x2" Glass Signal Mirror, Retroreflective Mesh
Trade School Tool Kit
My Pocket Kit
Glossary
Test

WARNING & DISCLAIMER: SELECT AND USE OUTDOORS AND SURVIVAL EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND TECHNIQUES AT YOUR OWN RISK. Information posted on this forum is not reviewed for accuracy and may not be reliable, use at your own risk. Please review the full WARNING & DISCLAIMER about information on this site.