Rochard

The US Supreme Court is going to decide if you need to be a member of a "well-regulated Militia" to own guns...... Oh boy!


Washington - The Second Amendment guarantees a constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." What that means exactly has been a source of intense debate that stretches back to America's founding.

Some legal scholars believe the amendment protects a right to keep and bear only those firearms that are necessary for ongoing service in a state militia. Other equally distinguished scholars hold the view that the amendment guarantees individual Americans the right to possess and use firearms, even when the guns are not related to service in a militia.

The US Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Tuesday in a potential landmark case that could settle the question once and for all.

The high court last addressed the issue almost 70 years ago in a case called US v. Miller. But that decision left the debate unresolved.

The Supreme Court's jurisprudence has been marked by a surprising lack of clear and decisive action on the Second Amendment. As a result, many of the legal briefs in the current case instead of emphasizing prior decisions of the high court offer competing versions of American history, focusing on the debates, writings, and experiences of the nation's founding era.

An unprecedented case
It presents what Georgetown University Law Center Professor Randy Barnett calls a "clean case."

"There is really no precedent standing in the way of the court enforcing the original meaning of this provision," Professor Barnett told reporters recently. "That's what makes this a historic case. That's what makes it a case that none of us ? have probably witnessed in our lifetime and may never witness again."

But that's also what makes it unpredictable, according to other analysts.

"We have no track record on any of this," says John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who embraces the militia-service view.

The justices must decide what the authors of the Second Amendment meant when they wrote and approved these words: "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."

In addition to settling a historic debate, how the high court reads those words will hold important implications for the constitutionality of gun control measures across the US. It could also inject the fiery issue of guns into the 2008 campaigns for president and Congress.

The debate over gun rights and gun-control exists at a major fault line in American political culture. One side views guns as a threat to public safety; the other views them as a protection of personal safety and national liberty.

Specifically at issue before the court in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) is the constitutionality of a ban on handguns and other gun-control measures enacted 32 years ago in Washington, D.C.

Dick Anthony Heller, a special police officer at the Federal Judicial Center, wanted to keep a handgun in his Washington home for self-defense. But the city government refused to issue him a permit, citing the city's stringent gun laws.

Mr. Heller sued in early 2003, charging that the handgun ban and other measures violated his Second Amendment right.

A federal judge threw the case out in March 2004, ruling that since Heller was not a member of a militia he had no constitutional right to firearms. But that judgment was reversed 2 to 1 last year by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The appeals court found that the right to arms established in the Second Amendment is broader than a narrow link to a militia.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the city argue that the Second Amendment protects only militia-related firearms rights, not the personal use and possession of firearms. The city's lawyers say the first clause of the amendment limits the scope of the entire amendment.

Lawyers for Heller disagree. They characterize the amendment's first clause as a preamble to the rights-securing language in the second clause. "The preamble cannot contradict or render meaningless the operative text," writes Heller's lawyer, Alan Gura, in his brief to the court.

In the Constitution, when the framers refer to "the people," they are discussing individual rights, Mr. Gura says. By conferring a right to "keep" arms, the people thereby enjoy a right to have arms in their homes and use them for personal protection, he says.

Lawyers for the District of Columbia say the Second Amendment was not written to create an armed populace. It was designed to address concerns about national power to arm ? or disarm ? the state militias. "The amendment prevents Congress from interfering with the right of the people of each state to arm a well-regulated militia composed not of professional soldiers, but of the people themselves," writes Todd Kim, solicitor general of the District of Columbia, in his brief to the court.

Other gun laws may be affected
District of Columbia v. Heller requires the high court to confront a series of questions. First, what kind of right does the Second Amendment secure, a collective, militia-related right or an individual right?

Second, if it secures an individual right, is that right violated by a handgun ban and other strict gun-control measures such as those enacted in Washington?

To answer the latter question the high court would have to decide what level of constitutional scrutiny to apply to the city's gun-control laws. Will they use the strict scrutiny applied to protect the free speech rights of the First Amendment and other fundamental rights? Or will they use the lower level of scrutiny generally applied against government regulations?

This is the aspect of the case that could jeopardize gun-control measures in other parts of the country.

Some analysts say that even if a majority of justices rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms, their ruling will not necessarily undercut most existing gun-control laws.

A similar handgun ban in Chicago would probably be unconstitutional, they say, but widely adopted gun-control measures like background checks and machine gun restrictions would most likely survive.

"The issues in this case are not about eliminating all reasonable restrictions on firearms," says Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who authored a friend of the court brief on behalf of Texas and 30 other states urging the high court to strike down the handgun ban.

"Instead, they are about does the Second Amendment protect a real right," he says. A decision in the case is expected by late June.

Yahoo News Article

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

Pleasurepays

ban guns.

AdPatron

Fuck that!!!

DateDoc

WASHINGTON ? The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years.

A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms."

Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals' gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.

"What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?" Roberts asked at one point.

But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District's public safety concerns could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.

"Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?" Breyer said.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right, but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should allow for reasonable restrictions that allow banning certain types of weapons, including existing federal laws.

He did not take a position on the District law.

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

The 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."

While the arguments raged inside, advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside court Tuesday.

Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorist buy guns."

Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."

A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.

The high court's first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District's ban.

Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district's prohibition on handguns.

"We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe," Jenkins said.

Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national spokeswoman for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning handguns in Washington "is denying individuals the right to defend themselves."

Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the District's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's official position at the court.

The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

__________________

Catalyst

this is going to be long thread..

IllTestYourGirls

Montana says if they ban the guns they may leave the union. It breaks the contract the US made with Montana when Montana became a state.

__________________

DAMNMAN

If guns are made illegal in the US on that day it will be the end of the vision the founding fathers had for the U.S. and the begining of the quest for absolute power by the already powerful!!!!

The military will keep the peasants and surfs in line as they have always done.

__________________
email: zmaster (at) earthlink.net
ICQ: 196678616
ZMASTER

One less god!!!
I contend that we are both an atheist. I just belive in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

munki

Interesting...

__________________

DWB

Good for them.

DWB

Indeed.

Disarm the people step by step and then sooner or later you will have complete control. Nobody to fight you.

It's going to happen sooner or later. Maybe not in my and your lifetime, but it's gonna happen unless the people do something about it. Shit is out of hand.

pornguy

Yep. Much better to have the black market with all the illegal guns.


Dumb ass.

__________________
PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic

AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online!
TChicks.com | Angeles Cid | Mariana Cordoba | MAILERS WELCOME!

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE

All Americans should have guns. Its not just a right its a duty.

__________________

L-Pink

Pass any law you want ... just try and enforce it, lol.

digifan

Guns are bad... make love, not war ;)

__________________
[email protected]
Webair Rocks

Elli

Interesting timing. Attempting to disarm a public that is facing increasing crime and desperation, huge inflation and perhaps even a depression seems like inviting a violent revolt. Are they trying to tear the country apart all at once until it implodes on itself?

__________________
email: [email protected]

Anthony

"From my cold dead hands".

Simple as that.

__________________

Peaches

Where I live, it's almost a requirement you own a gun (theoretically - not like Kennesaw ;) ). Yet I can't remember a single gun related crime in the 7 years I've lived here.

Anyone seen the Diet Mountain Dew commercial where they have people attacking each other with yo-yos because yo-yos were invented as a weapon? Calls for outlawing them and such - pretty funny

halfpint

Bans dont work..We have very strict gun laws over here in the UK yet we get more and more shootings every year. In my opinion bans only push the problems underground and it hurts the responsible gun owners anyway. Plus the fact that the people who dont have a gun licence and want to go around blasting people will get hold of guns wether there is a ban or not

__________________

Get FREE website listings on Cryptocoinshops.net

Rochard

Yeah, because I'm really concerned about our military coming into my hometown and kicking some serious ass!

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

Mr Pheer

The supreme court is mostly republican, and republicans love guns. I'm not worried about losing any guns that I may or may not own.

Handguns are best for carrying concealed as personal protection. But I do disagree with what the one judge said about a handgun being the best for home protection. The best weapon for home protection is a 12 guage shotgun.

__________________
2 lifeguards for Jessica

Pleasurepays

oh. i wasn't aware that there is no black market for guns and that all guns used in the course of committing a crime were obtained legally already.

i see your point.

sorry.

you're a genius.

Anthony

You mean like how the Military rounded up Japanese-Amercian Citizens from their homes and possesions and moved them to Internment camps during World War II.

Learn from history and don't be an idiot like everyone else.

__________________

IllTestYourGirls

Or like Blackwater and the Reserves went into peoples homes in New Orleans beat up old women and took their guns?

__________________

Nikki_Licks

Agreed

Once this government gets all the weapons, they will do to us as they please and I am not gonna be one to buy into their nazi tactics!

__________________

Nikki_Licks

double posts...sorry about that

__________________

Pleasurepays

what does that mean exactly within the context of this conversation and gun ownership?


a) citizens didn't have guns, so that is why this happened?

or

b) japanese should have just started shooting soldiers?

baddog

I have to admit, I never thought I would see an ex-Marine in favor of gun control.

tony286

I have no problem with responsible people owning guns. I think the forefathers reasoning was if the government got fucked up it could be over thrown but that was muskets against muskets its alittle different now.

Pleasurepays

as i get older, i am increasingly horrified by the thought that people think they need guns to protect themselves from their own government or from their fellow citizens.

really? you people envision a scenario where you are going to hide behind a tree in your yard and repel a platoon of US Marines who want to kill you? Nothing is going to stop the most advanced fighting force on the planet except you and your AR-15? do any of you people actually stop to think about how totally absurd the whole "protection from the government" idea is? we are not living in 1780, we are not a new, unstable colony in a new and unstable world. in case no one here has a calendar, its the year 2008. some things have changed between the Boston Tea Party and today.

Americans can't understand how the rest of the world can look at us like backwards idiots.. yet so many here (you know... in "the worlds greatest democracy") insist they need guns just in case they need to start shooting their own soldiers. thats simply so far beyond insane that it defies description.

why stop using that logic for simple guns? it doesn't make sense because there is no parity of force. why not just start arguing that you need tanks, planes, surface to air missile systems, a navy and air force and army to protect yourself from the navy, air force and army?

"patriotism" is an all too convenient disguise for "insanity".

After Shock Media

I say B as it seems like the correct answer.

I do seem to recall from my history books that one of the main issues that forced the hands of our founding fathers to declare independence was that the King had ordered troops/officers to disarm those in Boston.

__________________

IllTestYourGirls

You realize that there is a depression predicted right? thats with a D. Greenspan predicts a Depression that will rival the Great Depression.

Have fun protecting your property with your steak knifes. I am sure the cops will use what little gas they have on you.

__________________

Pleasurepays

really? a few thousand people seen as outsiders in a racist society who are of the same ethnicity of the country who destroyed the pacific fleet in an afternoon should have just started shooting? you think that would have ended well for them?

you have to stretch things to try to make an analogy between the fight for independence and an ENTIRE NATION of people who wanted it and were ready to fight and die for it and that had the support of france (militarily and financially) and others and a few thousand immigrants from the same country that declared war against the US as being similar?

IllTestYourGirls

only very small % of Americans wanted to be independent of the empire.

__________________

Brad

Ya, because the American citizens have shown that they are willing to use the guns they are allowed to own to rally against unjust governments in the past or right now with Bush.

That's the biggest load of crap I've heard all day.

__________________

After Shock Media

Yes really and yes they would of gotten their ass handed to them and most if not all of them would of died. Shit happens when you want to be free, keep the rights that every man is entitled to (please note men is not a gender term) by protecting them with force if necessary.

There is zero stretch between them taking arms against a government stripping them of the very rights that they are entitled to and those of the early founding fathers and citizens who took up arms against the king.

Please note that early on before we ever even declared independence and when our own leaders sat on their ass talking citizens themselves took up arms against the army. There was no French support, no Spanish support, no congressional support, and for the most part no support from the vast majorities of the colonies. However you just really fast tracked the whole revolutionary war. It all started well before we declared independence and there was a lot of blood of regular citizens who where out numbered and out gunned. So really do not ever say they had the support of an ENTIRE NATION as you put it, hell we did not even have all the states support when we did declare independence.

__________________

Rochard

Because everyone knows that a handful of kids armed with hunting rifles can take on a few platoons of Marines in armored vehicles.....

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

J. Falcon

OK good luck to them.

__________________
Adult Copywriters



SEO Content for Porn Sites
sales at adultcopywriters dot com

ADL Colin

I don't think Greenspan said any such thing. He said (in the FT article this week) that when all is said and done this will be the worst FINANCIAL crisis since World War II (Note: "financial crisis"; banking, investment banks, mortgage firms, financial instruments) and so on but not the worst economic
crisis in general. Nor did he make any such statements about an economic crisis "rivaling the Great Depression"

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

J. Falcon

What a fucking retard you are.

__________________
Adult Copywriters



SEO Content for Porn Sites
sales at adultcopywriters dot com

ADL Colin

A handgun vs an M1A1 Abrams? "They" already have all the weapons.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

After Shock Media

Yet oddly near 2nd to 3rd world poorly trained civilians in places like Iraq and Afghanistan armed with assault riffles as well as whatever else they can round up is costing our Government how much per day again?

You were in the military, you should know some history. When has a military ever really been able to fully control and chalk up a win when dealing with an internal revolution? Sure the revolution word may change but that does not alter the issue at hand.

Many are fucking right that the civilians would suffer terrible losses and typically loose most engagements, specially in a fair fire fight. What however comes of the voluntary military when they need to engage their own families, towns, cities?

__________________

Pleasurepays

that movie, like most Patrick Swayze movies never fails to move me to tears.

i still enjoy dimming the lights, popping in that DVD, snuggling under the blanket with a shotgun and eating ice cream until i fall asleep while enjoying one of the best story lines and some of the best acting to ever hit the silver screen.

i'm wiping away the tears right now just thinking about it.

EZRhino

I think anti gun and pro gun advocates take it it to far left and right. I believe that responsible citizen should be able to own any reasonable type of weapon. Its our constitutional right.
When its late at night, I like the idea of my weapon being within reach and not relying just on 3 inches of compressed wood to protect my family from the bad guys outside.

J. Falcon

Very well said. Finally a voice of reason in all this fucking ignorance.

__________________
Adult Copywriters



SEO Content for Porn Sites
sales at adultcopywriters dot com

D

I, personally, don't feel I need a gun. That's why I don't own one at present.

I do, however - as all free people - require the _right_ to own one.

__________________
-D.
ICQ: 202-96-31

D

__________________
-D.
ICQ: 202-96-31

baddog

When was the last time you opened up a newspaper?

Pleasurepays

i don't have a personal issue with guns.

i do have an issue with the twisted and bizarre reasoning for owning guns. if people could just say "hey, i like guns, i want to have one" that would be a great deal less distressing than "hey, one day i might have to barricade myself in my house and fight off the United States Armed Forces... so i really need my collection of assault rifles".

to me, it's like someones right to own all the components of a bomb made from common household cleaners/chemicals. i don't have an issue with peoples right to have those things in their possession until people start saying "well, one day i might have to make a bomb and blow someone up or attack the government with explosives"... or these are just for "sport bombs"

Drake

It's been working in Iraq

baddog

Worked really well in Nam.