| Click to Post a New Message!
Page [ 1 ] | | |
|
|
|
Supreme court to hear 2nd admendment
Just got word the DC case will be heard. This will be a most important case for all citizens that enjoy the freedoms we have in this country.
U.S. Supreme Court to Hear First Second Amendment Case Since 1939
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Fairfax, Va. - The United States Supreme Court today announced its decision to take up District of Columbia v. Heller-a case in which plaintiffs challenge the unconstitutional gun ban in the nation’s capital. The District of Columbia appealed a lower court’s ruling earlier this year affirming that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the District’s bans on handguns, carrying firearms within the home, and possession of loaded or operable firearms for self-defense violate that right.
The NRA will participate in this case through briefs as a friend of the court. Oral arguments are likely to take place in early 2008.
In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that “[T]he phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.” The D.C. Circuit also rejected the claim that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because D.C. is not a state.
The decision marks the first time a Second Amendment challenge to a firearm law has reached the Supreme Court since 1939.
--nra--
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services.
Did you know
Since 1991, the number of privately owned firearms has increased between 65-70 million and the nation's total violent crime rate has decreased 38%. The nation's murder rate has decreased 43%.
Copyright 2007, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
|
|
 Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Supreme court to hear 2nd admendment
Harvey,
I'm anxious to hear the outcome of this case, not that it will change my view on firearms ownership one danged bit.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of our Founders, firearm ownership cannot be banned by any level of government......because the Creator gave us the right to defend ourselves from our attackers.
In this particular case, the subject has to do with banning modern HANDGUNS. It does not pertain to rifles, shotguns, or even black-powder pistols.
The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide if it is unconstitutional to ban any particular weapon, or class of weapons......and we all know the Federal Government's position on Class III weapons, otherwise known as machine guns.
Most people believe machine guns were outlawed for sale in the U.S. This is not the case. Any person who may lawfully purchase any other firearm, may also purchase machine guns, even today. The only stipulation to this, of course, is that for every controlled device, or weapon, there is a 200 dollar fee which must be paid prior to taking possession of the device or weapon. (A silencer is an example of a controlled device. A fully automatic M-16 is an example of a controlled weapon.)
The issue at hand here is whether or not the District of Columbia has the power to make a certain class of weapons illegal for sale or possession to its citizens.......even though there are no federal limitations on this particular class of weapons.
Joel
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Supreme court to hear 2nd admendment
Oh yea,
I hope the court does the right thing, and makes yet another statement the second amendment means individual right to "keep and bear".
Just like the first amemdment and 4th amendment and third amemdment applied to indivual rights not any "collective" right the gun grabbers would have the general population believe.
What do you think the national press would do if anyone tried to regulate their right to free speech as a "collective" right which needed to be regulated and controlled by the government.
Somehow a right you don't enjoy is easier to allow someone else to limit when it does not affect you.
But they just dont get it.
A wise man once said, if you give an inch they'll take a mile,
here is to those who believe more gun control and regulation by the government is needed
paraphrasing
"today we are a safer nation due to gun regulation and confiscation" - Hitler.
"Gaurd against any person who would take away your freedom in the name of security" - Jefferson
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Supreme court to hear 2nd admendment
Still like:
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
I know, those who would will not understand it. kt
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Supreme court to hear 2nd admendment
KThompson,
I don't know where this came from, as the author gives credit to someone other than himself.
"Remember, if the second amendment read, "A well-fed militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed," in no way could it be interpreted that only the National Guard has a right to eat."
I couldn't help but grin.
Joel
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Supreme court to hear 2nd admendment
"Just like the first amemdment and 4th amendment and third amemdment applied to indivual rights not any 'collective' right the gun grabbers would have the general population believe."
Let's not kid ourselves. Whatever individual rights we have, rest upon the right enumerated in the 2nd. At least in the political sense of rights, that is.
Not only is the sentence completely unambiguous--main subject, main predicate--it even includes an explanatory clause telling us why!
If you believe in the Rule of Law, and especially if you believe in individual freedom, then there is no question of what the 2nd means, both in spirit and in letter.
It is /the/ factor which singularly distinguishes America, in theory and practice. America is about who is sovereign, the individual or the State. Back in the old days, when folks were free to produce and trade, Americans produced like nobody else ever. Now we leave it to the geniuses in Govco, as if they can do it better than us. So can they?
Me, I'll keep my weapons. Personally I prefer dealing by wits, but I recognize that not everyone agrees!
"'today we are a safer nation due to gun regulation and confiscation' - Hitler."
Nah, completely different. That was the Fatherland; this is the Homeland.
jk
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Supreme court to hear 2nd admendment
The NRA just sent me a mailing to become a life member at a great discount. I missed a chance a number of years ago, I simply could not afford it, so I have remained an annual member. Now I may take them up on it, this may be the time to push the issue in the courts.
What surprises me is the number of people I know that own guns, hunt and don't belong, or even bother to vote in elections.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Supreme court to hear 2nd admendment
"What surprises me is the number of people I know that own guns, hunt and don't belong, or even bother to vote in elections."
I stopped voting years ago when I began taking it as an implicit endorsement of mob rule. I could see voting in a Constitutionalist system--IOW agreeing to the concept of Rule of Law--but only one which was strictly limited in the enforcement of the few rules that are passed by the mob-rule system. Sorta like the United States in its founding days. The Fed could have laws, but none could trump the States. And the States could have laws, but none could trump the freedom of an American citizen. It was all focussed on the sovereignty of the individual.
Besides...once a government begins not to follow its own Constitution, then there's no Rule of Law anyway. You have a renegade government in that instance.
My dilemma is this. For twenty years I've yapped that the only two people I could honestly support as President are Walter Williams and Ron Paul. And darn if one of them isn't running this time, as even a major Party candidate.
For me it's a very tough moral dilemma, and I don't have a lot of those. So for now I've just put up some signs and choose to watch the show. I think when the money goes funny next year and people find out that Dr. Paul happens to be an expert on that very topic--even wrote a book years ago--then things might change a bit.
250 year cycle...wouldn't that be something?
jk
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Supreme court to hear 2nd admendment
Pelletfarmer,
I don't often meet people like you on the internet, but I'm damn glad you showed up here.
If you would, even if just this one time, go cast a vote for Ron Paul, I'd be greatly indebted to you, Sir.
Ron Paul is the first constitutionalist to run for office since Thomas Jefferson.
Though it's never good to put one's faith in any fellow man, Ron Paul is hands down the best person on the ticket. I could use your help, and I'm asking for it.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family, Sir.
Joel
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Supreme court to hear 2nd admendment
Cutter:
I just renewed my NRA membership for 5 years. They discounted the rate to $100.00 and I got a 5 year membership pin and a watch.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Page [ 1 ] | | |
Thread 148507 Filter by Poster:
3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
|
()
Picture of the Day
bobhope
Unanswered Questions
Active Subjects
Hot Topics
Featured Suppliers
|
Gas Generator Weather Protecti
11-20-2007, 15:40 
Digg It 
Del.icio.us 
