Second amendment historic decision!!!!!

Mace

Mace

Joined
Apr 8, 2003
Messages
2,092
A historic day. The supreme court has rulled that the second amendment means an individual has the right to own firearms.!!!!!:thumbup:
Time to go out and spend that stimulus check!
Mace:D
 
Good , especially since the courts ruled that police are there to protect society at large not to protect individuals... An armed society is a polite society !
 
i agree this with folks at college all the time. im older then alot of the college crowd and these kids these days are something else. i try and explain that when u take away guns and knife from honest citizens u turn them into victims. Criminals never have cared or will ever care about laws so u can make all the anti gun laws in the world and it doesnt effect them. What is funny is you have obama who comes from an area totatly against guns and is his belief and has stated such, but yet his secret servicer posse is armed to the hilt. If he wants to believe that way then he should have unarmed guards. but we know that woint happen. Today was a great day for law abiding, honest hard working Americans.
 
Here's the court's decision. The first two or three pages should be read:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Here are a couple of key quotes:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
 
Thank you Mace, I was anxiously awaiting this decision, and then, kind of "missed it" :rolleyes: in the news when it finally came down.

Thanks for the "paperwork" Karl :thumbup:


:cool: :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
Awsome! Mete does this mean I don't need a NY pistol permit for a handgun if its registered, or was this just for DC?
 
It's nice that they finally reached a decision that upholds the Constitution, but the pathetic part is that four out of nine Supreme Court justices actually wanted to void a Constitutional Amendment, as if they had that authority.
 
Could be way off, but from what I read briefly, I believe the courts concern was DC being able to put a blanket ban on handguns. That was struck down, but they uphold the right of a state/principality to establish reasonable controls, possibly including permit requirments.

It's funny that DC has a concealed carry permit law that allows someone to carry a firearm, but I'm reasonably certain that no one beyond a VERY VERY select few have ever been issued one.

I understand arguments both ways. But the bottom line is, a defensless populess is a victim in waiting. There are places in this world were thugs roam the countryside with clubs/bats breaking into homes because they know the little old couple living there can't legally have a gun to protect themselves. The ABSOLUTE bottom line is that laws only affect the LAW ABIDING citizens. Eliminate guns, and then only the criminals have them, and they WILL get them, the law be damned.

--nathan
 
Last edited:
Incredibly, it takes 5 guys in robes months to say what anyone with common sense can clearly read. Then they have to tell another group of "high officials" to stop restricting the common man from his natural rights.

What a sad reflection.
 
Chris Meyer said:
It's nice that they finally reached a decision that upholds the Constitution, but the pathetic part is that four out of nine Supreme Court justices actually wanted to void a Constitutional Amendment, as if they had that authority.
Click to expand...

I agree totally. It is great that the ruling turned out the way it did but horrible to think that 4 people in that position tried to change/rewrite/void a major part of our Constitution. I think it was Charlton Heston who said that the second ammendment was the most important one because it was the one that safeguarded all the others.
 
I have read that there is the distinct possiblility of a much more liberal-slanted Supreme Court in the not-too-distant future. What yesterday's decision does is define the 2nd Amendment in a way that will make it difficult for that liberal court to making sweeping re-interpretations. It makes me wonder whether this case was specifically chosen to trump possible near-future political shifts.

While the decision may eventually alter the right to own handguns in other large cities that currently restrict ownership, I don't personally feel it is going to greatly alter current regulations otherwise. States will retain their right to determine carry laws, waiting periods, etc. What it will hopefully do is forestall any future gun bans and disarmament legislation.
 
Last edited:
Let"s see who's been thinkin it through...Does the Constitution give us the right tto keep and bear? I was surprisingly brought back to reality a few weeks ago by a well known talk show host that reminded me that no it doesn't give the right, it protects the right! Now that's where we've got to keep it straight...and that puts more responsibility on us to use and maintain that right!
All the gun laws are infringement against that right but sadly many don't see it that way cuz the have been brainwashed into thinkin otherwise!
So yuz that are packin keep it up,I know I will!
 
Dan , I'm not up on all the rules now but my permit goes back to a time when they had carry permits and permits for a premise ,mostly businesses. Some already had dropped the second one. The unfortunate thing is that they trust you to carry but not everywhere .And when you get the permit they don't give you the rules and the cops don't know them either.
For those who are not NY residents ,the permit is issued by the county so it depends on the judge !! even though it's a state permit [not valid in NYC]. NYC permits are a rare thing requiring job related or connections !! But please get training .If you need it training can save you [it's not like the movies !!]
 
fitzo said:
I have read that there is the distinct possiblility of a much more liberal-slanted Supreme Court in the not-too-distant future. What yesterday's decision does is define the 2nd Amendment in a way that will make it difficult for that liberal court to making sweeping re-interpretations. It makes me wonder whether this case was specifically chosen to trump possible near-future political shifts.

While the decision may eventually alter the right to own handguns in other large cities that currently restrict ownership, I don't personally feel it is going to greatly alter current regulations otherwise. States will retain their right to determine carry laws, waiting periods, etc. What it will hopefully do is forestall any future gun bans and disarmament legislation.
Click to expand...

Well stated. This is exactly what has just happened! I do believe that, regretfully, there will be a major political shift in the very near future.
 
I am not a gun owner (unless you count bb guns), but I can see how momentous of an occasion it is, congrats guys.
 
Well Sam...I think it's time to go out and get yourself a new toy!:thumbup::D
Mace
 
This decision is both monumentous and dissapointing in the same instant!

I fully agree that the decision makes the right call, as far as it goes, in that it protects the individual, god given right as codified and protected in the constitution to keep and bear arms.

However, there was much discussion in the proceedings about so-called "reasonable" restrictions. This language was upheld in the text of the decision, which specifically cites as precedent a case against one man who was arrested for toting a sawed off shotgun.

The legal basis for "reasonable restrictions" seems to be, but is not explicitly spelled out as "arms in common use at the time" thus, since handguns are in common use nationwide, they cannot be banned.

My real quandries are around the grey areas. Who defines how common is common use. is there a way to measure and say that of x% of gun owners have a type of weapon, it is in "common use", or if y number of americans own something it is in common use??

The decision goes to great pains to examine and disect the language of the second amendment, and to apply both common sense logic as well as legal doctrine and precedent to the words and phrasology of the amendment. It separates the two portions, and examines the relationship between them. While this to most people on both sides of the debate seemed to be the more important relationship, I disagree.

In a long, drawn out examination of the two clauses of the amendment, and a full examination of the relation between the two, the collective right crowd could not possibly have met constitutional muster.

However, there is not any examination of the final clause, "shall not be infringed" and what, exactly this may mean. How those words may be interpreted to allow for "reasonable restrictions" based on something as flimsy as "what is in common use" is a very interesting question. Esapecially when you get into the chicken and egg arguments about whether or not a partucular type of arm may or may not have been in common use if it had not been previously banned or restricted. Further, there is the possibility of states, counties, and municipalities continuing with buisiness as usual. For example, while DC has been specifically enjoined to begin allowing handgun permits, other cities that already do not allow handgun permits could make the argument that handguns are not in common use in their city, and thus, qualify as an "unusual" weapon, which would then be able to be "reasonably restricted" to only the police.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top