Gun Rights

[Anon]

Okay so I'm sure everyone noticed that the Supreme Court ruled that we are still allowed to keep and bear arms. Gee thanks.

Anyway did anyone notice how CLOSE the ruling was? 5-4 !!!!!!!! That is really pretty scary if you ask me....

[dwayner79]

5-4 is typical for this bench. I was glad they ruled the way they did, now if violent crime drops significantly in the next 18 months in DC, then we might actually get somewhere with proving the point that more guns really does mean less crime.

[Colin Stolzer]

I don't see this ruling as all that great, it still leaves an open door for registration and licensing, which will just be the next direction they take to restrict gun ownership. What part of "unalienable' is so hard for people to understand. Unalienable - not to apply a lien to, or in other words not taxable. I don't really care what you call it, (registration fee, licensing fee, gun owner tax) any time you have to ask the gov't permission and then pay a fee for the ability to do something, it is no longer a right but a privilege and privileges can be taken away at the whim of the gov't.

On a side note why aren't we charging the four supreme court judges who didn't uphold the constitution with treason. Or for that matter all the politicians who have broken their oath of office to uphold the constitution, they should all be charged with treason and upon conviction punished accordingly.

C

[Anon]

[quote="CowboyPreacher"]I don't see this ruling as all that great, it still leaves an open door for registration and licensing, which will just be the next direction they take to restrict gun ownership. What part of "unalienable' is so hard for people to understand. Unalienable - not to apply a lien to, or in other words not taxable. I don't really care what you call it, (registration fee, licensing fee, gun owner tax) any time you have to ask the gov't permission and then pay a fee for the ability to do something, it is no longer a right but a privilege and privileges can be taken away at the whim of the gov't.

On a side note why aren't we charging the four supreme court judges who didn't uphold the constitution with treason. Or for that matter all the politicians who have broken their oath of office to uphold the constitution, they should all be charged with treason and upon conviction punished accordingly.

C[/quote]


Hey....we get what we can get around here, in these days. :lol:

[Colin Stolzer]

Hey....we get what we can get around here, in these days.

I'm assuming you said that in jest, given the laughing smilie, but most people don't realize how close they came to loosing all of their rights yesterday.
All of the amendments were penned by the same man, on the same day, on the same piece of paper. The words "the people" appear multiple times throughout the Bill of Rights, if the supreme court had said "the people" doesn't really mean the people in the second amendment, then the premise of law says that "the people" doesn't mean the people any were else it appears in the document, like in the 1st, no more freedom of speech and religion, or how about the 4th no more warrants will be needed, or the 9th, and 10th. So we didn't come one judge short of loosing our gun rights yesterday, we came one judge short of loosing all our rights yesterday.

C

[dwayner79]

[quote="CowboyPreacher"][quote="Kitagrl"]
Hey....we get what we can get around here, in these days. :lol:[/quote]
I'm assuming you said that in jest, given the laughing smilie, but most people don't realize how close they came to loosing all of their rights yesterday.
All of the amendments were penned by the same man, on the same day, on the same piece of paper. The words "the people" appear multiple times throughout the Bill of Rights, if the supreme court had said "the people" doesn't really mean the people in the second amendment, then the premise of law says that "the people" doesn't mean the people any were else it appears in the document, like in the 1st, no more freedom of speech and religion, or how about the 4th no more warrants will be needed, or the 9th, and 10th. So we didn't come one judge short of loosing our gun rights yesterday, we came one judge short of loosing all our rights yesterday.

C[/quote]
I respect the fact that you are versed in 'lawyerly' language, but I find many of your posts akin to conspiracy theories, banking on FUD to go anywhere.

The fact is many lower court battles, and 3 SCOTUS battles all landed the other way up until today. The verbiage is NOT about "the people" as much as it is about a "militia". The rest of the bill of rights were not opened to questioning because of this. You are making a bigger deal out of this then needs to be.

[rancher824]

[quote="CowboyPreacher"]I don't see this ruling as all that great, it still leaves an open door for registration and licensing, which will just be the next direction they take to restrict gun ownership. What part of "unalienable' is so hard for people to understand. Unalienable - not to apply a lien to, or in other words not taxable. I don't really care what you call it, (registration fee, licensing fee, gun owner tax) any time you have to ask the gov't permission and then pay a fee for the ability to do something, it is no longer a right but a privilege and privileges can be taken away at the whim of the gov't.

On a side note why aren't we charging the four supreme court judges who didn't uphold the constitution with treason. Or for that matter all the politicians who have broken their oath of office to uphold the constitution, they should all be charged with treason and upon conviction punished accordingly.

C[/quote]

I was wondering where you get your definition of unalienable as not taxable. It means it cannot be taken away, alienated.

[Colin Stolzer]

[quote="dwayner79"]
I respect the fact that you are versed in 'lawyerly' language, but I find many of your posts akin to conspiracy theories, banking on FUD to go anywhere.

The fact is many lower court battles, and 3 SCOTUS battles all landed the other way up until today. The verbiage is NOT about "the people" as much as it is about a "militia". The rest of the bill of rights were not opened to questioning because of this. You are making a bigger deal out of this then needs to be.[/quote]
It never happens all at once, the other rights weren't in question with this ruling. But let me give you a general hypothetical that has happened in real cases many times. Today the court decision is specific to the 2nd amendment, but lets say that they had ruled the other way. Then a few years from now another amendment is challenged because someone had been denied their right, when the lower court hears the opinions presented by the lawyers and one of them uses a portion of this case law, not sighting the whole decision just the portion he wants, and the court rules well yes if it doesn't mean the people in the second amendment then it doesn't mean the people in the other amendments.

See this scenario has happened many times in lots of courts to slowly erode fundamental rights away a little at a time. And yes if you want I can sight multiple cases that have been built off of partial quotes from other case law that have changed the existing laws. Even when the original case quoted form was the exact opposite decision.

There's no conspiracy to it men of power always want more power and free people rarely willingly give up their freedoms all in one instance, but they can be eroded away a little at a time and people usually don't get to upset when they loose just a little bit of that freedom, especially when they are told it's being exchanged for something the state will provide for them.

Don't get me wrong I'm happy with the decision they made, it's much better than the opposite direction this could have gone.

C

[Colin Stolzer]

[quote="rancher824"]

I was wondering where you get your definition of unalienable as not taxable. It means it cannot be taken away, alienated.[/quote]
Unalienable and inalienable have the same definition in law. It has been well defined for a long time, it doesn't just apply to alienated, it also applies to being non transferable "Adj. 1. unalienable - incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another", it also means "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable" and it was well defined by multiple court case as meaning non-taxable. People v. Berberrich, McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc., People v. Toynbee, Morrison v. State, BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, SANDIN v. CONNER, BUTLER v. COM. OF PENNSYLVANIA, U S v. CRUIKSHANK, if you'd like some more reading just let me know.

C

[Anon]

Actually from what I read, had the ruling gone the other way, we would have lost our rights to own guns unless we were a part of an organized militia.

[dwayner79]

Kita, thats not realistically true, as before this ruling the laws were help in the opposite decision... this is NOT a landmark decision because we kept rules we had... quite the opposite. This ruling gave us more right then we had a week ago be ensuring that the SCOTUS sees that the 2nd amendment applies to home protection, and not just militia groups. If the decision went the other way, gun ownership in the home would have continued as something NOT covered by the constitution, and therefore subject to the normal local laws.

[Anon]

[quote="dwayner79"]Kita, thats not realistically true, as before this ruling the laws were help in the opposite decision... this is NOT a landmark decision because we kept rules we had... quite the opposite. This ruling gave us more right then we had a week ago be ensuring that the SCOTUS sees that the 2nd amendment applies to home protection, and not just militia groups. If the decision went the other way, gun ownership in the home would have continued as something NOT covered by the constitution, and therefore subject to the normal local laws.[/quote]


Not trying to argue or anything, I probably misunderstood...but when I was reading about the decision, it seemed to me that the question was whether or not the average "Joe" in America had the right to be armed, or just those part of a "militia" because of the wording of the Amendment. If they had decided that the wording meant "Only those part of an organized militia" then that would have pretty much set the ball in motion to confiscate all guns. That's how I understood it, anyhow.

[dwayner79]

The constitutionality (or is it a "right") was what was in question. So, if they had not, then laws like the DC ban *Could* be put in place, but only if the local government wanted to.

hope that makes sense.

[Anon]

[quote="dwayner79"]The constitutionality (or is it a "right") was what was in question. So, if they had not, then laws like the DC ban *Could* be put in place, but only if the local government wanted to.

hope that makes sense.[/quote]

Oh, okay. Maybe the article I read was a bit misleading.

However, it would have OPENED the door to make Washington DC laws pretty much in every state though.

I didn't realize how strict their gun laws were until I read the Supreme Court decision. Wow.

[Guest Guest]

Well...kitagrl...I don't think that you are too far off basse her with your assumption. :thumb The NRA called me yesterday, and explained pretty much the same thing...although, I don't understand the technical terms. From what I gathered, this is down to the wire here. Don't discoount what cowboypreacher said, either. Communism in this country has been seeping in the doors due to these liberal "do nothings". Sorry...but, they are trying to take away every right that we have under the US consitution. No news here...it has been like "smoke under the door". And, when you let the smoke creep...it will creep. We need to wake up and relalize what is going on in this country. We are in down-hill spiral...and, "patsys" don't make it any better by turning a blind eye. Where are the men?! C'mon. many of these liberals are "bleeding heart" women who need to be bridled...and, the men are letting it happen, or joining in on the band-wagon. They have no common sense whatsoever. JMHO.

candlelight