Supreme Court decision handed down today

R. Dobbs

R. Dobbs

Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8
This isn't technically a knife case, but often gun legislation/litigation impacts knife rights.

In a nutshell, the Court struck down Washington DC's ban on hand-guns, stating that the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, as opposed to being a COMMUNAL right (i.e. militias only).

I think that this decision can (and will) have a positive impact on both gun and knife owners.

Being a Liberal, I have often been at odds with many of the new conservative court's decisions, but on this one, I'm 100% on-board.

Just thought I would let ya'll know.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Gun toting Liberal with no political home to call my own... :)
 
As someone who probably would be called a "liberal", i agree with you completely on this. Never understood why there is anti-gun/knife attitude in some Americans.
 
R. Dobbs said:
This isn't technically a knife case, but often gun legislation/litigation impacts knife rights.

In a nutshell, the Court struck down Washington DC's ban on hand-guns, stating that the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, as opposed to being a COMMUNAL right (i.e. militias only).

I think that this decision can (and will) have a positive impact on both gun and knife owners.

Being a Liberal, I have often been at odds with many of the new conservative court's decisions, but on this one, I'm 100% on-board.

Just thought I would let ya'll know.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Gun toting Liberal with no political home to call my own... :)
Click to expand...
Without doubt, a great victory for us all. The Constitution says "right to keep and bear arms". I can imagine that edged weapons are covered by this as well.
 
Great news!

To celebrate, I intend to take my AR and a case of ammo out to the range this weekend and make a few holes in a target.
 
Tom1960: I agree, which is why I thought it should be posted.

BoxANT: I think it is a matter of exposure and understanding. I grew up on a rural cattle ranch in Texas. As a result, I was exposed to guns and knives at an early age as being tools to do a particular job. Therefor, I am not afraid of guns/knives (only bad guys that use them for evil.) My wife, however, was raised in the city and had no positive exposure. To her family, the only gun/knife exposure they had was via the nightly news in which one was used for ill. As a result, I had to "retrain" her regarding the truth about arms. She is still leery around guns, but now supports gun/knife ownership. It all comes down to educating people about the facts and overcoming, sometimes lifelong, preconceptions.
 
Currently, lots of places prohibit carrying of knives-Arms-for self defense, but this ruling clearly says that self defense is an entirely legitimate use.

So, will this also negate knife laws that consider certain knives; for example, over x inches in length illegal, because they are considered weapons?

It would seem that the right to keep an bear arms has finally been confirmed, and that if x knife is a weapon, then a person's right may not be infringed.

No?
 
In a careful reading of the majority decision it clearly defines "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
Click to expand...

I think in the face of this historic decision almost any law or regulation that threatens our right to bear any arm wether it is a firearm, blade, impact weapon, electric weapon, chemical weapon or armor worn in defense could be struck down under challange.

The first step is that the National Rifle Association will attack handgun bans in Chicago and other major cities. The second should be the draconion laws on knives for self defense. In NC I am allowed to carry a .40 handgun for self defense but if I am found packing a folder over 3.5 inches or any fixed blade knife I can be charge and possibly lose my CCW permit.

Ridiculous.......
 
I read about 20 pages of the ruling, and it was clear that "arms" did not refer only to guns.

The "dangerous" weapon thing is a bit troubling; however, and should have been defined, because by definition any (every) weapon is "dangerous".

By the same token, lots of things are "dangerous" without being weapons at all: industrial machines, construction equipment, power tools, automobiles, etc.
 
I have not had a chance to read the whole ruling (will correct that tonight), but as I understand the news reports, this applies to the home, not necessarily the person. So carrying the weapon may still be an infraction, whereas keeping it in your home will not be. I'm fairly confident that the cities with soon to be struck down outright bans will turn to overly strict regulations dictating where/when/how you can "bear arms".

Possible scenario: Making the purchase, sale, or transportation of "weapons" illegal but not the actual home possesion. If it is illegal to buy them or transport them from the store to your home, the it would be a defacto ban.

I would hope that such a scenario does not come to pass, but the opposition is crafty.

Joe-Bob: I agree, that is troubling. The problem is that, in the "Hallowed Halls of Washington", perception outranks facts. A pencil can be just as deadly as a 12" Bowie, but the PERCEPTION of a pencil as an innocuous household item would preclude it from being a "dangerous weapon". I think we would all agree here that motive is what makes something a "weapon", not the thing itself. The challenge is in getting opponents to see it this way as well.

We, as a community, should make it one of our priorities to educate everyone we come across in that distinction.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Gun toting Liberal with no political home to call my own...
 
Fraser said:
Great news!

To celebrate, I intend to take my AR and a case of ammo out to the range this weekend and make a few holes in a target.
Click to expand...
My Ruger .308 and I are going to join you in the celebration. I have several boxes of South African military surplus 7.62 NATO/.308 FMJ that I am going to use to get in some long overdue practice!:)
 
R. Dobbs said:
I have not had a chance to read the whole ruling (will correct that tonight), but as I understand the news reports, this applies to the home, not necessarily the person. So carrying the weapon may still be an infraction, whereas keeping it in your home will not be. I'm fairly confident that the cities with soon to be struck down outright bans will turn to overly strict regulations dictating where/when/how you can "bear arms".

Possible scenario: Making the purchase, sale, or transportation of "weapons" illegal but not the actual home possesion. If it is illegal to buy them or transport them from the store to your home, the it would be a defacto ban.

I would hope that such a scenario does not come to pass, but the opposition is crafty.

Joe-Bob: I agree, that is troubling. The problem is that, in the "Hallowed Halls of Washington", perception outranks facts. A pencil can be just as deadly as a 12" Bowie, but the PERCEPTION of a pencil as an innocuous household item would preclude it from being a "dangerous weapon". I think we would all agree here that motive is what makes something a "weapon", not the thing itself. The challenge is in getting opponents to see it this way as well.

We, as a community, should make it one of our priorities to educate everyone we come across in that distinction.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Gun toting Liberal with no political home to call my own...
Click to expand...
We already have a law protecting the legal transportation of firearms. It is called the McClure-Volkmer Gun Owners Protection Act. It specifies that the firearm may be transported in a vehicle as long as it is unloaded and inaccessable, such as in a locked trunk, pickup truck bed-mounted tool box, or other locked container. Unfortunately, this Act, signed into law in 1986, prohibits the sale, transport or possession of machineguns manufactured after this date by private citizens. If you had any auto weapons and they were not registered by this date, they are illegal under federal law. Law enforcement and military are, of course, exempt!;)
 
joe-bob said:
I read about 20 pages of the ruling, and it was clear that "arms" did not refer only to guns.

The "dangerous" weapon thing is a bit troubling; however, and should have been defined, because by definition any (every) weapon is "dangerous".

By the same token, lots of things are "dangerous" without being weapons at all: industrial machines, construction equipment, power tools, automobiles, etc.
Click to expand...

They were talking about machine guns, full auto rifles, and explosives but of course this "dangerous weapon" label will be used to deny us our 2nd Amendment rights.

"Sure you have the right to keep and bear arms, just not any dangerous weapons" which means "whatever we consider to be a dangerous weapon (i.e. any handgun, any shotgun or rifle with more than 5 rounds of ammo, any auto knife, any gravity knife, any fixed blade knife, etc)". :barf:
 
What surprised me was the 5 to 4 vote. So let's see 4 out of nine Supreme court justices think the Constitution is unconstitutional?
 
they still didn't address the issue of shall not be infringed . they still will disect the 2nd ammendment to fit their needs
 
joe-bob said:
It would seem that the right to keep an bear arms has finally been confirmed, and that if x knife is a weapon, then a person's right may not be infringed.

No?
Click to expand...


Right. Caught up in their own wording. Calling a big knife a weapon backfired on them. :D


R. Dobbs said:
I have not had a chance to read the whole ruling (will correct that tonight), but as I understand the news reports, this applies to the home, not necessarily the person. So carrying the weapon may still be an infraction, whereas keeping it in your home will not be.
Click to expand...


This is a quote from the ruling:

"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation"


Sounds to me like they declared it to mean you can carry it in case you are confronted. And they didn't say "guns" but instead the broader term "weapons".


Did ya'll hear that the Illinois Rifle Assos. filed a lawsuit against Chicago 15 minutes after the ruling? :D


:cool:
 
Just remember that even an individual fundamental right may still be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Those restrictions must pass the "strict scrutiny" test which is used to measure laws that infringe on fundamental rights. The gun-hating cities (NYC, Chicago, SF) will attempt to maintain "reasonable restrictions" which will undoubtedly be challenged in federal court. Bloomberg has Judge Jack Weinstein in his back pocket, so NYC residents have little hope of successfully challenging, I think.

Same goes for knives. The "dangerous knife" restriction may survive "strict scrutiny" as a "reasonable restriction". However, it may help us in that "dangerous knife" may finally be given some definitive description (ie., blade length, spring loaded, double-edged) so that not every liner lock exposes a person to potential prosecution.
 
PV29 said:
Same goes for knives. The "dangerous knife" restriction may survive "strict scrutiny" as a "reasonable restriction". However, it may help us in that "dangerous knife" may finally be given some definitive description (ie., blade length, spring loaded, double-edged) so that not every liner lock exposes a person to potential prosecution.
Click to expand...
Remember, the justices said something about guns that were "normal and common" when the amendment was written. As that would pertain to knives, All manner of swords, bayonets, daggers and fixed blade knives were normal and common Arms at the time, and so the "reasonable restrictions" seem to have been ruled out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top