Supreme Court Decision - Page 2

davidkachel · 06-29-2008, 07:17 PM

It is indeed disturbing that four members of the Supreme Court do not understand, or worse, choose not to see, what the 2nd Amendment is all about.
Tac used the operative word in his post: 'traitors'!
Our government is full of traitors and fools. I'm not sure which is worse, but we can absolutely count on both to do whatever they believe necessary, regardless of the Constitution, law or equity, to get their way. Though we may have finally won one after decades of loss after loss, the fight is hardly over. This is definitely one time where we had damned well better kick them while they're down!

alvin · 06-29-2008, 07:32 PM

Freedom is very fragile. "never was so much owed by so many to so few."

Luke · 06-29-2008, 08:24 PM

As I understand the Court's opinion, the Second Amendment guarantees that a citizen has the right to "own a gun in the home for self protection." The majority opinion also stated that "reasonable" restrictions could be imposed by governments.

If we get a Democrat congress and a Democrat president, it seems it might be possible to pass a federal law that outlaws all automatic and semi-automatic weapons while allowing revolvers, for example, in the home. Such a law would prohibit the ownership of Lugers ! ! !

Navy · 06-30-2008, 06:42 AM

yes, I find it mildly amusing that some justices can read the constitution and find a right to abortion and a virtual prohibition on religious expression in public but have great difficulty is understanding the literal interpretation of the Second Amendment.

We now have, based on recent rulings, a new tyrany of the Judiciary; unelected, tenuered for life and totally unaccountable to the people, unlike the other two branches. Maybe this bears a relook?

Tom A

HerbZ · 06-30-2008, 06:51 AM

I'm sorry, I just can't join in with those gloomy guys trying to figure out how to conceptually wrestle a defeat out of the jaws of the greatest victory gun owners have had in nearly 80 years. The tide has turned, get use to it. We're more likely to see Californians once again able to purchase magazines with the same capacity that gun owners can in other states, than see any new "unreasonable" restrictions passed anywheres. (BTW, I think the restricting of handgun ownership by a municipal government to only revolvers has already been thrown out by the Ohio Supreme Court.) I wouldn't count on any politician, regardless of political party or past history, to do anything with any certainty other than try to get and keep political power.

P.S. Californians, don't go reaching for your Brownells' catalog just yet. You're not gonna be able to purchase those high capacity magazines for a while longer. The law is conservative in nature, it grinds out things slowly but surely.

Aaron · 06-30-2008, 10:41 AM

OK, here are just a few of the California regulations in force at present:
1. One gun purchase a month.
2. You must purchase a new approved lock with each gun purchased.
3. No mags over ten rounds.
4. Ten day wait
5. Excessive DOJ fees.
Do these fall under the description of "reasonable restrictions"? And who determines what is "reasonable"? Are we going to have a court case over how reasonable is each restrictive law ever passed or proposed in this state?

Edward Tinker · 06-30-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom A
....
unelected, tenuered for life and totally unaccountable to the people, unlike the other two branches. Maybe this bears a relook?

Tom A

Its always been this way; in previous adminsitrations there were complaints the court was too conservative; that is why there are nine, it usually works out. Just not always.

Ed

Navy · 06-30-2008, 11:17 AM

While I am very aware of the constitutional history surrounding the court and its status, I think thet one could reasonably apply some of the liberal justices written opinions and rationale for their decisions by applying "emerging standards of....(Accountability?)" or "Prevailing international custom and prescident...(On limited tenure??).

Just sayin'...

Tom A

Navy · 06-30-2008, 02:39 PM

The ever observant IowaHawk nails it...

Washington DC - In a sweeping 4 1/2 to 3.14159 decision with 1.35841 abstaining, the United States Supreme Court handed down a ruling this morning in the landmark Abdul the Party Clown v. U.S case, recognizing the individual rights to gun ownership by child rapists and Guantanamo detainees. The decision was immediately hailed by international human rights activists and child rape organizations.

"This is a great day for the Constitution," said Sunshine Liebowitz of the American Civil Liberties Union, who had filed an amicus brief in the case. She said the group would petition the court to order shipments of handguns to needy prisoners at the US military's notorious Camp X-Ray detention camp.

"This ruling helps reconcile and clarify several seemingly conflicted opinions coming from the court," said longtime court watcher Nina Tottenberg of National Public Radio. "Thank God it doesn't apply to Texans."

The petitioner in the case, Abdul Hamid Atwah, was a well known Taliban child entertainer and rapist who was detained by U.S. Marines after a 2005 sweep on an Afghanistan playground and has been held at Guantanamo ever since. In 2007 the court agreed to hear his case suing the government for restricting his Second Amendment rights to keep court-appointed handguns and explosives in his detention cell.

Writing for the majority, Justice William Kennedy said that "as an enthusiastic child rapist and terrorist, petitioner has a reasonable expectation of threats of harm. This court recognize his proportional right to self-defense under the sweet, elusive penumbra of our ever-mutating Constitution."

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said "I totally give up."

Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg partially abstained from the decision, Souter citing a conflict of interest due to "an interest in clowning, and ambivalent feelings about children." Ginsberg left the bench in the middle of the hearing to wander in the hallway, announcing she was going to "arrest that lumberjack man who keep hiding my gavel."

While creating a sweeping expansion of gun ownership rights, the ruling specified it would be limited to individuals "whose day to day activities create a compelling need for self protection from angry mobs or the US military," such as "serial child rapists, foreign terrorists, or Supreme Court justices." In order to qualify for free federal weapons under the ruling, applicants would be required to provide proof of eligibility.

The court is expected to rule later this week on separate case involving Atwa, where he is seeking the right to court appointed children.

Sieger · 07-01-2008, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike B
Let's elect a president who sides with the majority on the supreme court.

Mike

Hi Mike:

Just who would that be?

Sieger

HerbZ · 07-01-2008, 09:30 AM

OK, here are just a few of the California regulations in force at present:
1. One gun purchase a month.
2. You must purchase a new approved lock with each gun purchased.
3. No mags over ten rounds.
4. Ten day wait
5. Excessive DOJ fees.
Do these fall under the description of "reasonable restrictions"? And who determines what is "reasonable"? Are we going to have a court case over how reasonable is each restrictive law ever passed or proposed in this state?

I am not, or have I ever been, an attorney. But it's my understanding that each one of those may have to be a separate legal case. As someone from the Libertarian Party has recently written about this landmark Second Amendment case ruling and how it will lead to rolling back anti-gun laws, "Rome wasn't built in a day."

P.S. I am not, or have I ever been a member of the Libertarian Party (or any political party for that matter). But I do like a lot of what they stand for, and I appreciate the help they were on this case. We might expect that the Libertarian Party may do a lot of good things for our nation, as long as they don't ever get too much political power. I wouldn't want to see the presidency and both houses of congress controlled by the Libertarian Party any more than I would the twiddle dumb and twiddle dee parties that have already. But I would like to see some Libertarians get elected to congress. (And I'd admire Ron Paul even more than I do already, if he'd quit the Republicans and announce himself a Libertarian.)

rkl56119 · 07-11-2008, 06:23 PM

States have the right to make their laws more restrictive than Federal laws. That is one of the benefit of having a Federalist system. States however do not have the right to make laws differently from the Federal statutes.

If you look at the California law, it in itself, no way limits a person's right under the new interpretation from the Supreme Court under Heller, restrict ownership of a gun for home defense. California just applied a more stricter standard to home ownership but individuals are still able to own a gun despite restrictions. Heller only clarify that ownership of a 'handgun' is allowed for home defense.

Disclaimer: Just my personal opinion as a law student

Aaron · 07-11-2008, 10:11 PM

Yes, but one could argue that obstruction of ownership of a gun is a defacto way of preventing gun ownership. California has made it impossible to buy a cheap, affordable gun by indiscriminately labeling many serviceable firearms as "Saturday night specials." It has also imposed unaffordable fees on gun purchases and transfers. The state has and continues to impose unreasonable restrictions on manufacturers which has significantly reduced the selection of guns available. Paying $35 or more to transfer a $50 .22 rifle is tantamount to prohibiting such a transfer, thus very possibly depriving a low income individual from acquiring a cheap weapon for home defense. Such laws can only be deemed "unreasonable."

06-29-2008, 07:17 PM	#21
davidkachel User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 784 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	It is indeed disturbing that four members of the Supreme Court do not understand, or worse, choose not to see, what the 2nd Amendment is all about. Tac used the operative word in his post: 'traitors'! Our government is full of traitors and fools. I'm not sure which is worse, but we can absolutely count on both to do whatever they believe necessary, regardless of the Constitution, law or equity, to get their way. Though we may have finally won one after decades of loss after loss, the fight is hardly over. This is definitely one time where we had damned well better kick them while they're down! __________________ A heroin habit would be cheaper.

06-29-2008, 08:24 PM	#23
Luke User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: NC - USA Posts: 1,239 Thanks: 0 Thanked 19 Times in 7 Posts	As I understand the Court's opinion, the Second Amendment guarantees that a citizen has the right to "own a gun in the home for self protection." The majority opinion also stated that "reasonable" restrictions could be imposed by governments. If we get a Democrat congress and a Democrat president, it seems it might be possible to pass a federal law that outlaws all automatic and semi-automatic weapons while allowing revolvers, for example, in the home. Such a law would prohibit the ownership of Lugers ! ! ! __________________ "Peace, if possible; truth, at any cost." . . . Martin Luther

06-30-2008, 06:51 AM	#25
HerbZ User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ohio Posts: 128 Thanks: 20 Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts	I'm sorry, I just can't join in with those gloomy guys trying to figure out how to conceptually wrestle a defeat out of the jaws of the greatest victory gun owners have had in nearly 80 years. The tide has turned, get use to it. We're more likely to see Californians once again able to purchase magazines with the same capacity that gun owners can in other states, than see any new "unreasonable" restrictions passed anywheres. (BTW, I think the restricting of handgun ownership by a municipal government to only revolvers has already been thrown out by the Ohio Supreme Court.) I wouldn't count on any politician, regardless of political party or past history, to do anything with any certainty other than try to get and keep political power. P.S. Californians, don't go reaching for your Brownells' catalog just yet. You're not gonna be able to purchase those high capacity magazines for a while longer. The law is conservative in nature, it grinds out things slowly but surely. __________________ "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." Mark Twain

07-01-2008, 09:30 AM	#31
HerbZ User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ohio Posts: 128 Thanks: 20 Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts	OK, here are just a few of the California regulations in force at present: 1. One gun purchase a month. 2. You must purchase a new approved lock with each gun purchased. 3. No mags over ten rounds. 4. Ten day wait 5. Excessive DOJ fees. Do these fall under the description of "reasonable restrictions"? And who determines what is "reasonable"? Are we going to have a court case over how reasonable is each restrictive law ever passed or proposed in this state? I am not, or have I ever been, an attorney. But it's my understanding that each one of those may have to be a separate legal case. As someone from the Libertarian Party has recently written about this landmark Second Amendment case ruling and how it will lead to rolling back anti-gun laws, "Rome wasn't built in a day." P.S. I am not, or have I ever been a member of the Libertarian Party (or any political party for that matter). But I do like a lot of what they stand for, and I appreciate the help they were on this case. We might expect that the Libertarian Party may do a lot of good things for our nation, as long as they don't ever get too much political power. I wouldn't want to see the presidency and both houses of congress controlled by the Libertarian Party any more than I would the twiddle dumb and twiddle dee parties that have already. But I would like to see some Libertarians get elected to congress. (And I'd admire Ron Paul even more than I do already, if he'd quit the Republicans and announce himself a Libertarian.) __________________ "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." Mark Twain

06-29-2008, 07:32 PM	#22
alvin User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: US Posts: 3,843 Thanks: 132 Thanked 729 Times in 438 Posts	Freedom is very fragile. "never was so much owed by so many to so few."

06-30-2008, 06:42 AM	#24
Navy RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Dc 'burbs in Virginia Posts: 2,482 Thanks: 0 Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts	yes, I find it mildly amusing that some justices can read the constitution and find a right to abortion and a virtual prohibition on religious expression in public but have great difficulty is understanding the literal interpretation of the Second Amendment. We now have, based on recent rulings, a new tyrany of the Judiciary; unelected, tenuered for life and totally unaccountable to the people, unlike the other two branches. Maybe this bears a relook? Tom A

06-30-2008, 10:41 AM	#26
Aaron Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vista, CA Posts: 1,008 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts	OK, here are just a few of the California regulations in force at present: 1. One gun purchase a month. 2. You must purchase a new approved lock with each gun purchased. 3. No mags over ten rounds. 4. Ten day wait 5. Excessive DOJ fees. Do these fall under the description of "reasonable restrictions"? And who determines what is "reasonable"? Are we going to have a court case over how reasonable is each restrictive law ever passed or proposed in this state?

06-30-2008, 11:17 AM	#28
Navy RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Dc 'burbs in Virginia Posts: 2,482 Thanks: 0 Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts	While I am very aware of the constitutional history surrounding the court and its status, I think thet one could reasonably apply some of the liberal justices written opinions and rationale for their decisions by applying "emerging standards of....(Accountability?)" or "Prevailing international custom and prescident...(On limited tenure??). Just sayin'... Tom A

06-30-2008, 02:39 PM	#29
Navy RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Dc 'burbs in Virginia Posts: 2,482 Thanks: 0 Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts	The ever observant IowaHawk nails it... Washington DC - In a sweeping 4 1/2 to 3.14159 decision with 1.35841 abstaining, the United States Supreme Court handed down a ruling this morning in the landmark Abdul the Party Clown v. U.S case, recognizing the individual rights to gun ownership by child rapists and Guantanamo detainees. The decision was immediately hailed by international human rights activists and child rape organizations. "This is a great day for the Constitution," said Sunshine Liebowitz of the American Civil Liberties Union, who had filed an amicus brief in the case. She said the group would petition the court to order shipments of handguns to needy prisoners at the US military's notorious Camp X-Ray detention camp. "This ruling helps reconcile and clarify several seemingly conflicted opinions coming from the court," said longtime court watcher Nina Tottenberg of National Public Radio. "Thank God it doesn't apply to Texans." The petitioner in the case, Abdul Hamid Atwah, was a well known Taliban child entertainer and rapist who was detained by U.S. Marines after a 2005 sweep on an Afghanistan playground and has been held at Guantanamo ever since. In 2007 the court agreed to hear his case suing the government for restricting his Second Amendment rights to keep court-appointed handguns and explosives in his detention cell. Writing for the majority, Justice William Kennedy said that "as an enthusiastic child rapist and terrorist, petitioner has a reasonable expectation of threats of harm. This court recognize his proportional right to self-defense under the sweet, elusive penumbra of our ever-mutating Constitution." In his dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said "I totally give up." Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg partially abstained from the decision, Souter citing a conflict of interest due to "an interest in clowning, and ambivalent feelings about children." Ginsberg left the bench in the middle of the hearing to wander in the hallway, announcing she was going to "arrest that lumberjack man who keep hiding my gavel." While creating a sweeping expansion of gun ownership rights, the ruling specified it would be limited to individuals "whose day to day activities create a compelling need for self protection from angry mobs or the US military," such as "serial child rapists, foreign terrorists, or Supreme Court justices." In order to qualify for free federal weapons under the ruling, applicants would be required to provide proof of eligibility. The court is expected to rule later this week on separate case involving Atwa, where he is seeking the right to court appointed children.

07-11-2008, 06:23 PM	#32
rkl56119 User Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 13 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	States have the right to make their laws more restrictive than Federal laws. That is one of the benefit of having a Federalist system. States however do not have the right to make laws differently from the Federal statutes. If you look at the California law, it in itself, no way limits a person's right under the new interpretation from the Supreme Court under Heller, restrict ownership of a gun for home defense. California just applied a more stricter standard to home ownership but individuals are still able to own a gun despite restrictions. Heller only clarify that ownership of a 'handgun' is allowed for home defense. Disclaimer: Just my personal opinion as a law student

07-11-2008, 10:11 PM	#33
Aaron Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vista, CA Posts: 1,008 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts	Yes, but one could argue that obstruction of ownership of a gun is a defacto way of preventing gun ownership. California has made it impossible to buy a cheap, affordable gun by indiscriminately labeling many serviceable firearms as "Saturday night specials." It has also imposed unaffordable fees on gun purchases and transfers. The state has and continues to impose unreasonable restrictions on manufacturers which has significantly reduced the selection of guns available. Paying $35 or more to transfer a $50 .22 rifle is tantamount to prohibiting such a transfer, thus very possibly depriving a low income individual from acquiring a cheap weapon for home defense. Such laws can only be deemed "unreasonable."