SHOWDOWN: Supreme Court could decide constitutionality of gun ownership... - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 14 (permalink) Old 11-12-2007, 07:15 AM Thread Starter
~BANNED~
 
Jakarta Expat's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2006
Vehicle: PM me to Join the Expat Muslims for Obama Club........
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 17,697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
SHOWDOWN: Supreme Court could decide constitutionality of gun ownership...

SHOWDOWN: Supreme Court could decide constitutionality of gun ownership...

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has sThat could change in the next few months.

The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.

The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.

"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.

The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.

Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.

Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.

Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.

The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.

Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.

Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.

Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.

He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.

The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.

Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.

Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.

"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.

Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.
aid virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.

Supreme Court could take guns case - Yahoo! News
Jakarta Expat is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 14 (permalink) Old 11-12-2007, 08:30 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
wbain's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 1965 220S, 1999 Volvo V70 (wagon), 2006 Ford Crown Vic Police Interceptor, 72 350SL 4 Speed
Location: Near Manassas Va.
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
The cout case stems from the provision in the law that doesn't allow you keep guns in your own hose unless they are locked in a safe, have a trigger lock or are disassembled.

One other thing, the first several amendments deal with individual rights, as in 'the people'. Who knows what the SCOTUS will do, look at the 5th amendment takings discision which lets the gov't take your property if it can determine a better use for it that you, such as in more tax revenue.

Near Manassas Va. '65 220S, 2006 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, '99 Volvo V70, '72 350SL 4 speed

Not part of the in-crowd since 1952. It's BRAKES not breaks. You break a bone, use brakes to stop your car. /rant

http://www.megamanual.com/index.html
http://www.bgsoflex.com/megasquirt.html

Last edited by wbain; 11-12-2007 at 08:32 AM.
wbain is offline  
post #3 of 14 (permalink) Old 11-12-2007, 12:13 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
This is a pretty activist court and seems to split 5-4 on nearly every decision so it really should be interesting if they take it, and how it comes out.

In the BIG picture, it is time for the Courts to make some kind of definitive ruling on the current state of Ownership Rights as they are a ragged quilt of rules at this point. Much like lines in the Bible, folks have pulled elements of the Bill of Rights out to meet their own version of what is "right".

Since most people believe it is a living document maybe it is time to clear out some of the ambiguities and lay out some clearly defined lines. Then, those on the opposing side of the resultant ruling can muster up the forces for a Constitutional Amendment to change the Bill of Rights.

As that should occur just after the 2008 elections, maybe that will give the media something more significant to chew on besides obsession with Hollywood B-Lister's pantyless coochies.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #4 of 14 (permalink) Old 11-12-2007, 01:04 PM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Yeah but that was about DC
We need actually a law just for Baltimore where I can legally build and man a guard tower on my property and have access to heat seeking mini missiles and perimeter minefields.

DP is offline  
post #5 of 14 (permalink) Old 11-12-2007, 10:35 PM Thread Starter
~BANNED~
 
Jakarta Expat's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2006
Vehicle: PM me to Join the Expat Muslims for Obama Club........
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 17,697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
maybe that will give the media something more significant to chew on besides obsession with Hollywood B-Lister's pantyless coochies.

Got pics?
Jakarta Expat is offline  
post #6 of 14 (permalink) Old 11-12-2007, 10:37 PM Thread Starter
~BANNED~
 
Jakarta Expat's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2006
Vehicle: PM me to Join the Expat Muslims for Obama Club........
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 17,697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
maybe that will give the media something more significant to chew on besides obsession with Hollywood B-Lister's pantyless coochies.

Britney finally came to your church, The Sacred Heart of the Pantiless Coochie, got pics?
Jakarta Expat is offline  
post #7 of 14 (permalink) Old 11-12-2007, 11:04 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakarta Expat View Post
Britney finally came to your church, The Sacred Heart of the Pantiless Coochie, got pics?
No pics, the interview schedule for the Missionary Position was all booked up. And I had bought white dress shoes and everything.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #8 of 14 (permalink) Old 11-12-2007, 11:16 PM Thread Starter
~BANNED~
 
Jakarta Expat's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2006
Vehicle: PM me to Join the Expat Muslims for Obama Club........
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 17,697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
^^^^LOL...Well you will be ready for next time, you got the white belt, the matching dress shoes.

Posting while watching Flight of the Intruder for the 7th or 8th time, this is one of the better Vietnam flicks I know of......
Jakarta Expat is offline  
post #9 of 14 (permalink) Old 11-13-2007, 07:25 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
wbain's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 1965 220S, 1999 Volvo V70 (wagon), 2006 Ford Crown Vic Police Interceptor, 72 350SL 4 Speed
Location: Near Manassas Va.
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Since most people believe it is a living document maybe it is time to clear out some of the ambiguities and lay out some clearly defined lines. Then, those on the opposing side of the resultant ruling can muster up the forces for a Constitutional Amendment to change the Bill of Rights.
I don't believe it's a living document. That's like saying the contract you just signed or your parents will doesn't really mean what it says. The living document argument is just a way for Congress to do whatever it wants and justify it by saying 'Interstate Commerce' or some such excuse.

Near Manassas Va. '65 220S, 2006 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, '99 Volvo V70, '72 350SL 4 speed

Not part of the in-crowd since 1952. It's BRAKES not breaks. You break a bone, use brakes to stop your car. /rant

http://www.megamanual.com/index.html
http://www.bgsoflex.com/megasquirt.html
wbain is offline  
post #10 of 14 (permalink) Old 11-13-2007, 07:38 AM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
^ Then I'm sure you'll heartily condemn the Bush administration for acting as if the Constitution is an obsolete document.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    The other recent Supreme Court ruling and your money bgoin Off-Topic 0 07-07-2007 05:33 PM
    President Bush prepares for possible Supreme Court vacancy Jayhawk Off-Topic 12 06-04-2007 01:41 PM
    Bush decides he wants a nutcase instead of a crony on the Supreme Court FeelTheLove Off-Topic 59 11-03-2005 10:07 AM
    Mann Coulter doesn't like new Supreme Court nominee, so he must be OK FeelTheLove Off-Topic 9 07-20-2005 07:13 PM
    Very significant ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court GeeS Off-Topic 11 02-02-2005 10:24 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome