“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

First smart decision they have made in years.

5-4 for the win. Kinda close.

Should we celebrate by posting pics of our guns in this thread before it gets taken over anyway by silly unarmed canadians?

you beat me to posting it. DAMN if this isn't starting to look like a very good day.

On another forum (fark), we've got the folks who are appalled falling into two major arguments:

1 - they read something into the Constitution that isn't there or removed something. Depends on the person. This appears to be patently false when you read the dissenting opinions as at least one (haven't read them yet) focuses more on stats than the wording.
2 - this is only going to open things up for more lawsuits in the future. Why yes, yes it is. This is a good thing as it'll likely strike down more unConstitutional laws.

Too bad they also decided to vote to let that piece of ant shit child rapist live.

Yes.

And hopefully, he'll "live" in General Population.

Yayyy - when's the next gun show in town, I need to buy more?

Love this countrys gun laws. England is way to anal about guns just because one psycho dude went on a rampage and shot a bunch of people in the 1980's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_Massacre

Yes there is less gun crime in the UK. BUT - all of the bad guys have guns and most of the good guys don't, so what crime there is becomes particularly one sided in the bad guys favor.

Unfortunately your home country and the home of my ancestors is doomed to become a third world Sharia-ruled shithole it seems.

It was a good decision. Unfortunately it seems narrow.

The decision still leaves an awful lot that has to be fought for another day. The decision only involves federal law and federal territory (Washington D.C is a federal city).

The very scary thing is that we are only one vote away from having the individual right of gun ownership taken away.

I haven't looked at the dissenting opinions yet. I'm almost too scared to take a look.

Anyone see the DC Mayor, Thumbing his nose to the Supes by saying, "Well this only applies to having one in your home..."? Duh, how you going to get it home?

I haven't had time to read the ruling, but I agree, if Bush hadn't gotten his two (Sorta conservative) Appointments, we would have lost the 2A today.

Hopefully, McCain will put a very strict constructionist on the Supreme Court during his term that will ensure the sway towards the People and not the Gov't. That is if he wins.

From what I've seen of them, they're weak - at best. Haven't read them all - but I do have the entire thing ready to print out so I can read it all later.

As for the other laws that need to be challenged, I think that's a good thing. It gives those with grievances the ability to challenge the unConsitutional laws and get them over-turned - which sets precedent and can let a lot of this be done locally rather than nationally.

Here's some gun porn in celebration of the ruling

A key statement from the dissenting opinion.....

"As used in the Second Amendment, the words “the people” do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well regulated militia."

The further I read the dissent the worse it gets.

It is absolutely clear that the leftists on the Court believe the Second Amendment applies only to the use and possession of firearms by the military.

Any gun owners who still want to vote Democrat better get used to the idea of being a former gun owner in the near future.

Another quote from the dissent disagreeing with the majority opinion....

"Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably supports the Court’s overwrought and novel description of the Second Amendment as “elevat[ing] above all other interests” “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.""

Yes, that was way too close to comfort. That's one would be Obama appointed Supreme Court justice away from losing our rights.

Think about that.

Jesus...can't we just give the libs New York and New England and let them start their own country so we can have ours back? Hell, give them CA too, just let us have equal usage of the port of Los Angeles.

Whoo hoo!! I'm gonna go buy me some grenades too!! Sweet!!

That was my argument before. Whether you're for or against guns - and I'm for (responsible) gun ownership - and whether people like it or not, that seems to be what the words used in the Second Amendment say. Otherwise, why would the militia even be mentioned?

That's what the four leftists on the Supreme Court interpret it as saying.

You obviously haven't read the majority opinion or the opinion handed down by the District Court of Appeals.

Wilmac - Since you can never formulate an actual valid argument to anything, can you please just stfu? You have really been showing your trollish nature of late...

Blue - I've said it before, that the SA's intention was so that the individual has the right to protect him/herself in addition to raising a milita for broader service. How can you protect yourself from a "tyrannical governing body" if you need to seek out approval from that very governing body? The supreme court addresses this very question in their findings and it was one of the reasons they ruled they way they did. It's nonsensical to believe that "the people" and "a milita" are not one and the same, and the SA gives the government the ability to "call up" the milita, not create one. The militia of the people is always in existence.

Troll? I've made, like, three posts in four months or something.

Now, excuse me, but I have a trunk full of AK's I've got to sell on Constitution Ave.

I rest my case. You have nothing at all to add to the discussion, yet feel your snide remarks are worthy of posting. Why even bother posting if that's all you are going to do?

I'm done with it anyway, you're a troll, i'll not feed you any longer.

Good. Pull the pins, drop the spoons, and shove as many as you can up your ass.

Typical WilMac. The ruling clearly states that things like hand grenades and tanks are not covered. :rolleyes:

From the egomaniac, Justice Breyer's dissent.....

"The argument about method, however, is by far the less important argument surrounding today’s decision. Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today’s decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission."

He is wrong about that. I even wonder if he was even aware of the contents of the majority opinion.

The majority opinion clearly stated that the decision applies to federal law. It also stated that government has a right to make restrictions regarding gun ownership.

The decision also doesn't incorporate itself onto the states.

How did this fucking guy get to the Supreme Court?

He went on to say....

"In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion for the group but Breyer had to stick in his two cents.

These left wing justices clearly believe that American citizens have no right to defend themselves in their homes with firearms.

That sentiment repeats itself numerous times throughout the dissent. It also doesn't even include the caveat of "crime ridden areas" when mentioned previously.

This country is surely in for very scary times in the future if these people get control of all three branches of government.

Read this on FARK's discussion thread...

"Why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

Both of those are some of the worst things I've read. Seriously.

On the former, the SCOTUS' job is to uphold the Constitutionality of the laws. That's what they're there for. Secondly - how is this dangerous? If the law is unConstitutional, it should be recinded. No if's, and's, or but's.

On the second - the right, as they interpreted it, has absolutely nothing to do with need nor self-defense. It's about whether or not this is an individual right.

It's like he wasn't there.

Carlton - good to see I'm not the only Farker on here.

Let me ask, Who determines "responsible", when the Citizen obtains legally the Firearm in the first place? You can't legislate against a criminal, because they, by definition, will not follow the law.

Militia was a term that was common when the people wrote the Constitution/DOI. If you've read any of the Federalist papers, their style of writing and the words they use differ greatly from what we would say these days. Just read some Laws and see how different we now write.

If todays lawyers wrote the Constitution it would fill the Library of Congress.

My celebratory shots. Not too exciting, but there's an AK-47 involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fwmG2tQPUs

And no, I'm not the orange pumpkin guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Nbfyfa38I

And here's a gratuitous jam of "Ruby Ridge" from the Idaho incident before Waco in Texas. My wife's the fiddler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKSjnZtKTmY

"In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Disgusting liberal elitism right here. He may as well have said, N*****s, are to stupid to defend themselves. Horrible logic for someone who sits in such a position as he does.

I'm surprised you found much in the way of pro-gun arguments from the Uber-liberal socialist trash that makes up 75% of farkers. That's why I go over there - to stir those assholes up.

That said, I'd love to ask this SCOTUS justice why gun control laws haven't significantly reduced crime? Those comments were stupid at best.

Oddly enough, there are a huge number of pro-firearm Farkers out there. We've been pwning the gun grabbers for quite some time now and today's thread (over 1,455 posts) is a nice bit of vindication. What's really odd is that most of the grabbers aren't showing up. Hiding and all.

They will now rely on the UN and Obama to subjugate our rights to defend ourselves.

I don't know much about Fark, but I checked a couple of radical left wing web sites like DailyKos and Democratic Underground.

It does seem like a lot of the more vocal totalitarian gun grabbers are a bit silent. At least for now.

A decent number of the comments do support the decision and the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms.

There is a certain tone with some of them. We'll call it the WilMac syndrome. Here are a few examples.......

Here is a funny exchange between two liberals.

The first one wrote this brief statement....

The next person responded to him with this....

The idiot troll-factor is high today. Really high.

And another from the same idiot.

This is a different failer, but equally dumb. It's odd, but he completely ignored the arguments about the elderly, handicapped, small women, etc.

It's been a fun day...

Yeah - but with one more conservative on the court you'll lose a whole slew of different rights... damned if you do and damned if you don't I guess.

Anyway, here are a couple of my toys:

Easy. You'll just need a Firearm Transportation Permit, available by mailing in your non-refundable $1,000 application fee along with hundreds of pages of notarized documentation, all of which must be completed correctly down to the last detail, oryour application will be rejected. Once the application has been correctly completed, the Board of Firearm Transportation will review your application and either approve or reject your application, at its own discretion. There is no time constraint on the application process, no system of appeals in case of rejection, and any attempt to contact the Board of Firearm Transportation will result in immediate rejection of your application and addition of your name to a List of Firearm Holders Not In Good Standing.

Sorry kids, this is good news, but in the end it doesn't mean shit if local and state agencies don't have to adhere to Constitutional Law.

Exactly what "slew" of rights do conservatives want to take away from you?

It hasn't been any conservative SCOTUS justices that have sought to take any liberties away from you. It has been the left wing justices.

Everything from property rights to freedom of speech and more is no longer an enumerated right in their minds.

The leftists on the court clearly stated today that they do not think you have a right to own those guns in your photo.

I'm a CCW holder and carry my Glock 23 when I feel it might come in handy.

Since sold the lame Glock Laser that came with it when I purchased it from my Brother in law.

[img]http://www.rholgate.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=7958&g2_serialNumber=2[/img]

And my non-concealed carry for camping and the like .357 Ruger GP100:

[img]http://www.rholgate.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1513&g2_serialNumber=2[/img]

That's part of the the SCOTUS struck down. They said that blanket bans and the like don't work, etc., so the DC thing is out.

If DC tries something like that, they're going to get bitch-slapped the whole way up to the SCOTUS again and will lose, again.

Mi amigo fresh out the camera

Sweet! Guess I dont have to start a militia now

I'm more of a small caliber revolver man, myself. I leave the big bore stuff to the overcompensatin' types.

New Jersey already claimed their ruling won't change anything.

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080626/NEWS/80626035&GID=B+/jziOkmDMI3PCGY+wI/LPLY5ETspT9dkNrvaZBRQw%3D

Because of four cities (Trenton, Camden, Newark, and Patterson) the rest of the state (mostly farmland) has to suffer. What do those four cities have in common? You figure it out....

This state is doomed because of liberals.

S.

You're exactly right.

The Supreme Court intentionally steered clear of incorporating the individual right to bear arms onto and through the states.

What exactly are the laws in Los Angeles regarding firearms for average citizens? I assume it would be difficult for a carry permit (Maybe unless you are a celebrity or politician. That's the way it is here for the most part.)

What is the degree of difficulty and what is allowed?

I carry a kel-tec p3at (.380) everywhere, own a ruger p95 (9mm) for home and a beretta neos .22 for fun/target. Used to own a rossi .357, ruger sp101 .357, Ruger MKII .22, Glock 23, a couple rifles (.270 30-06) and a couple shotguns..... and a bow...

The City of Los Angeles varies little from the rest of the state in terms of its views on the transportation of firearms.

Difficult ain't a severe enough word for how hard it is to get a concealed carry permit. Unless you're rich and famous or a member of law enforcement or high-profile member of government, you don't get one.

Unfortunately they are correct Stone.

Nothing changes in states and municipalities across the country because of this ruling. That is despite all the bullshit that is coming across in many media outlets today.

Changes that would directly affect state and local governments would require a new challenge and a new ruling stating that effect.

Quote:

This state is doomed because of liberals.

New Jersey is still a nice place to visit. .... As long as you don't have to pay the taxes to live there.

You should really get out and see more of the country.

i thought that if it was a federal law or a federal ruling that each state was bound by it? that they could add to but not take away rights? if they dont have to abide by the SC ruling why would they even bother with the SC anyway?

I thought Federal Law supercedes any State laws?

Why won't NJ have to abide by the Supreme Court ruling? Why bother having a SC then?

Carry permits are almost the same here in NYC. The police department will never grant a carry permit unless you show an extraordinary need regarding the danger of imminent physical harm which is (extremely difficult to show and an extremely high hurdle to overcome. Not for some celebrities it seems, and that has been a long time complaint.

Business owners with clean records who deal with large amounts of cash can apply and obtain carry permits. There are qualifications and restrictions to that as well and it is technically not a license to full time carry.

People in the security industry with clean records can also get carry permits, but there are also restrictions involved.

Citizens here can apply and receive a rifle and shotgun permit. They don't make it particularly easy, but people can get a permit.

oh & since others are doing it i'll be a lemming too & post mine, just got it recently =)

Supreme Court rulings don't have to apply to the states and the entire nation. If their intention was such, they would have stated that fact.

This ruling applies only to this particular case and federal law and the federal government.

For Supreme Court rulings such as this to apply to all states and the entire nation, they would have had to specifically state that and make the case for such as far as the 14th Amendment was concerned.

The court intentionally kept this decision narrow. It is not the "landmark decision" some are claiming.

Some pro-gun groups will definitely cite this decision in future legal arguments for years to come. But in reality, it means little as far as other cases or future cases are concerned.

This decision was only the first rung on the ladder of Second Amendment individual rights to firearms.

Because the decision was narrow, it can very easily be taken away. I think that fact is being lost with some people and groups today.

Thank you for the explanation NY.

I think the same thing, a 5-4 vote, albeit is a 2A victory, it is by no means a big decision. A stiff breeze could change the voting to the other side.

S.

That's true.

Consider this scenario......

The city of Washington D.C. now writes another law regarding handguns and firearms. It may be different than the previous law, but creates extreme hurdles that almost all honest law abiding citizens cannot overcome in regards to owning a handgun... or any firearm for that matter.

A new legal challenge is brought forth regarding the new law. That legal challenge makes it all the way to a near future Supreme Court where a President Obama has already made one, maybe two SCOTUS appointments to the bench.

That court could very easily rule against the individual right to own firearms and also within their decision apply the "incorporation" principle which would make their decision binding on all states and governments throughout the country. Therefore removing and eliminating any individual right to own firearms all across the land.... and that case would become a "landmark decision".

The current Heller case can be easily overlooked and thrown out the window because of it's narrow scope and the fact that it is not precedent and the legal principle known as "Stare Decisis" doesn't apply. Not that precedent matters to left wing judges, but the current Supreme Court clearly let an opportunity pass by. They refused to "settle" the issue as far as the constitution and the states are concerned.

What is that - Looks lovely?

My bro in law wants the Glock 23 back he sold me soon, as he only sold it to me because he needed the money desperately. So I need something compact like that to replace her.

its a Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm compac. havent shot it yet as i picked it up on wednesday. there's no gun ranges down here cept for the one on base & they dip out on fridays at 9 or 10 =p. it feels rock solid & everyone i've talked to has said its an awesome pistol. haven't met anyone that has shot one that doesnt like it. having a pretty hard time trying to find an attachment with a light + laser on it though, any thoughts?

I've been reading the dissent this morning and one thing seems to pop out. Some of the state constitutions he cites as indicating the second ammendment is referring to "the people" as a collective, require that the state provide arms and training to the people and that those individual who do not wish to comply must pay a fee. Is that kind of the basis behind the civilian marksmanship program? Surely it wasn't just a way to get rid of surplus weapons.

Name one. :rolleyes:

The NRA has already filed suit against Chicago, and SF for their bans.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=11210

Mayor Daley is pissed. He knows his ban is doomed. It is just a matter of time.

The ban here is worthless. Nothing will keep guns out of the gangbangers hands.....

Exactly bpc. It is worthless, as all gun bans are. Only the criminals have the guns.

But one thing that is working in our favor is their interpretation of the wording of the 2A. From what I've read (and I'm only 15 or so pages into the full text), they're pretty much bitch-slapping the dissenting opinion and judges with the way they've written it.

As a quoted precedent, it's going to present some definite hurdles for those opposing the 2A to get it back to the SCOTUS. I don't think anyone will be able to successfully argue that it's not an individual right - what they will argue is the level of hurdle that can be put in place and who they can restrict.

I agree - it's not as landmark, but it's a pretty solid victory, if narrow in scope.

habeus corpus?

Warrantless wiretapping and other surveillance of US citizens?

It's the liberals and groups like the ACLU (that's right... I said it) that will eventually correct these injustices.

Glad I live in a "shall issue" state! Ever wonder why you never hear of a case of "Road Rage" in Texas?

Add to that the fact that Texas reverted to the "Castle Doctrine" last Sept. and included personal vehicles along with you're place of business... no more "Duty to Retreat"!

Here's my addition to the "gun porn" files.


By rntknives , shot with hp photosmart 733 at 2008-06-28


By rntknives , shot with hp photosmart 733 at 2008-06-28

Jeff!