Supreme Court meets to issue opinions, orders (Washington DC Gun Ban)

The Las Vegas Sun ^ | May 27, 2008 | AP

[Erik Latranyi]

The Supreme Court is meeting to issue opinions and announce whether it has accepted any new cases.

Major cases still undecided include the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., and whether people convicted of raping children can be given the death penalty.

The court's term ends in late June.

[mvpel]

Your intended use is none of our business either, yet you made a point of telling us. Why?

To chelate out some of the emotional, for-the-children mud in the waters which was stirred up by the previous post.

We criminalize DUI. Why? Merely driving under the influence harms no one.

Again, that goes to BEHAVIOR, not POSSESSION. The Heller case is about SIMPLE POSSESSION. It is NOT POSSIBLE for nearly all ordinary citizens to POSSESS a handgun in DC.

I wouldn't object to banning carrying or use of grenades while intoxicated, for example, along the same lines as the DUI laws. But that's an entirely different matter than criminalizing simple possession.

[andyandval]

A long read. But great and persuasive.

Respondent's brief in D.C. v. Heller

[grey_whiskers]

I see nothing wrong with the price of an M4A1, with M203 attached, and ACOG scope all for under the price of $5000.

I must confess I misread your post as "the price of an M1A1..."

While having an Abrams main battle tank in my driveway *would* look stylish, I doubt I would be able to afford the fuel for long.

Cheers!

[ExSoldier]

Surely you're not sitting here pontificating on this subject without having the slightest bit of knowledge about it, when Google is free of charge? Hand grenades were invented in the 1500's, about 250 years before the Amendment was written, in fact. Explosive land mines were used in 1277 - 500 years before the Amendment - in China, even ones detonated autonomously by enemy movement. Fuse-triggered explosive cannonballs, though dangerous to the cannon's operator as well as his targets, were used in the 1400's.

You're right, I shot from the lip on that one. I stand corrected.

But in today's political climate surely you're not going to try and justify the 2nd Amendment to the SHEEP in those terms? That's my whole point. Letters of Marque may allow Bill Gates to buy an aircraft carrier or more realistically a small destroyer or a large cutter. But the hue and cry would leave him hanging from his own yardarm.

This very thread could be used to do the same to us. Face it: we allowed the liberals to infiltrate public education under the radar and the current situation is the result and there is no turning back on that. They have globalized the minds of the children who will become cops, soldiers, politicians and future teachers! My new sociology textbook mentions the word GLOBAL in all it's forms and tenses at least 50 times a chapter! I have to give assignments and teach from that.

Clearly the 2nd Amendment and it's true meaning is one of the fatalities of this brilliant enemy action. For us to argue this round and round just adds icing to their cake.

[mvpel]

But in today's political climate surely you're not going to try and justify the 2nd Amendment to the SHEEP in those terms?

Of COURSE not. But they already know that's where the inconvenient Second Amendment takes us, because they are fully aware that before 1934 you could buy machine guns at Sears, Roebuck, & Co., cash-and-carry or mail-order from the venerable Sears catalog.

Why do you think they're so exercised over the implications of the Heller case and an individual-rights ruling? Why else would they have spent decades trying to twist the meaning of the Second Amendment, if they weren't aware of that?

Their gun-grabbing house of cards that they've built up over the decades is on the verge of collapse, and there's essentially nothing they can do about it.

As for hue and cry, so what? Let them hue and cry all they want, as long as they don't initiate force to violate my individual rights.

[vincentfreeman]

"But that's an entirely different matter than criminalizing simple possession."

What's wrong with criminalizing possession of an object? We do that all the time. Counterfeit money, for example. The theory being that these items may make their way into the public.

I believe that was the very reason used by the DC City Council when they passed the law. Are you saying that the citizens of Washington, DC, through their elected representatives, should not be allowed to decide this issue?

Gosh, the next thing you know they'll have to allow abortions. Wait a minute ....

[vincentfreeman]

I learn something every day.

[mvpel]

What's wrong with criminalizing possession of an object? We do that all the time. Counterfeit money, for example. The theory being that these items may make their way into the public.

I believe that was the very reason used by the DC City Council when they passed the law. Are you saying that the citizens of Washington, DC, through their elected representatives, should not be allowed to decide this issue?

They shouldn't be allowed to decide this issue any more than they should be allowed to decide to legalize chattel slavery, disemboweling as punishment for criticizing the government, or random roadside body-cavity searches.

The whole point is that handguns "make their way into the public." That's what they're for. Where else would they be except in possession of their owners, being members of the public?

Self defense is a fundamental human right.

[vincentfreeman]

"They shouldn't be allowed to decide this issue any more than they should be allowed to decide to legalize chattel slavery"

You find the two issues equivalent? And here I thought you were a serious poster. Perhaps if you compared the second amendment to, say, the first amendment (where a narrow category of "speech" is regulated), you'd come to a different conclusion.

"Self defense is a fundamental human right."

Don't illegal aliens have this right? Prisoners? The mentally ill? Children?

I was under the impression that we all had the God-given inalienable right to self-defense. Don't you agree?

[faloi]

What's wrong with criminalizing possession of an object? We do that all the time. Counterfeit money, for example. The theory being that these items may make their way into the public.

There are some major difference between criminalizing possession of some items, like drugs and counterfeit money, and criminalizing possession of firearms. The chief difference is that "the right to bear arms" is specifically in the Constitution. Unless an Amendment made it in when I wasn't looking, there is no Constitutional protection for possession of counterfeit money.

I appreciate the "states rights" viewpoint in allowing the citizens to decide the issue, but the US Constitution is the trump card, as I understand law.

[hiredhand]

Oh yeah...she meant it all righty! She's “territorial” over that particular piece of real estate. ;-) ...the kitchen that is!

[hiredhand]

I LIKE the Ruger. We’ve got one very similar. The kids like it. You can zap a lot of “stuff” with it, cheaply too!

[LibertyRocks]

Very cool... Thanks so much for the info! :)

[vincentfreeman]

"I appreciate the "states rights" viewpoint in allowing the citizens to decide the issue, but the US Constitution is the trump card, as I understand law."

You are correct.

But the courts have ruled that the second amendment only applies to federal laws, not state laws. If Mr. Heller resided in Chicago and claimed second amendment protection, the courts would have thrown it out.

Since he is a Washington, DC resident, however, we are talking about federal law and the second amendment.

"The chief difference is that "the right to bear arms" is specifically in the Constitution."

Yes, and so is the right to free speech. Yet some speech is federally regulated even though the first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law ...". The question to the court is if some weapons can be regulated.

[LibertyRocks]

Cool stuff, ExSoldier! I’ll have to check all of those out. :)

[joe fonebone]

sorry to disagree with you....the purpose of the second amendment is to allow the citizens the ability to overthrow a rogue or out of control government....therefore it is the duty of every citizens of the US to own and possess any weapon the military has in it’s arsenel, including automatic weapons, rockets, etc. during the revolution, private citizens owned and operated warships.....see tagline

[DuncanWaring]

Curiously, it looks like “vincentfreeman” signed up about the same time robertpaulsen got banned.

[omega4179]

Plus barack hussein obamas dead veterans in the audience gaffe is carrying over to today.he thinks there are 57 states! Quayle got lynched over potatoe but obama gets to show his ignorance every day.

[beltfed308]

But the courts have ruled that the second amendment only applies to federal laws, not state laws. If Mr. Heller resided in Chicago and claimed second amendment protection, the courts would have thrown it out.

How's it going Robert? Changing your screen name doesn't hide your stripes.

[ctdonath2]

The “license fee (and harrassment) on a mini-gun” is $200, fingerprints, photo, and a little paperwork.

That’s assuming you can find one for sale. IIRC, there are only 6 legally sellable - and one guy owns half of them.