Supreme Court

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/story?id=5037600&page=1

in the words of Stan Lee,

'Nuff said

 

It looks good, but lets look at this:

Guns are Ok for self defense For the home.

They can lisense/register our firearms

They can decide that certain guns "don't count"


...They ****ed us.

<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> They pulled off what I said they would, it SOUNDS good (So no one will rise up) but they opened the door even MORE to disarmerment. __________________

 

They also opened the door to strike down more gun laws. The people in DC are screwed as they have no gun stores to buy guns from!

I know Bush is the devil, but if it wasn't for his SC choices this would never have happened.

 

Actualy they simply 'didnt address' lisencing since that portion of the case was basicly setled between the litigants. The 'in the home' was preceded by 'such as' which shows it is simply an example and not a limit. The majority opinion also made it VERY clear and stated that it did not cover all right insured by 2A. He also gave a big opening for further cases to expand the decision such as the 'in common use' portions combined with his statments about the M16 leaving room to argue that that and othe military small arms would be covered by 2A and could not be regulated.

Its not perfect but better than I expected and dose virtualy no harm that it dose not provide plenty of opinion to counter.

 

<table bgcolor="#ffffff" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="754"><tbody><tr><td colspan="3" background="../images/back.gif" width="754"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="30%"></td> <td valign="middle" width="62%">

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION
OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]America's Most Aggressive Defender
of Firearms Ownership[/FONT]​

</td> <td valign="middle" width="8%">

[SIZE=+5][/SIZE]​

</td> </tr> </tbody></table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="3" background="../images/a2.gif"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td></td> <td style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" align="center" width="100%"> <!-- #BeginLibraryItem "/Library/Header.lbi" -->

Home | Articles | Campaigns | Network | Freedom Music | Membership/Donations
Talkin' to America | Handbills & Other Freebies | Books, Videos, Apparel | About JPFO ​

<!-- #EndLibraryItem --></td> <td></td> </tr> </tbody></table></td> </tr> <tr> <td>

​

June 26th 2008​

The Pros and Cons of Heller

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. This case represents the first time the Court has considered in detail the nature and scope of the Second Amendment.
At issue were the District of Columbia’s laws which largely ban all handgun possession within the city and which require all long arms to be unloaded and either disassembled or fitted with a trigger lock, rendering them essentially unavailable for self defense as “functional firearms.”
The Court, in a 5-4 decision which struck down both the outright handgun ban and the “functional firearms” ban, held that the Second Amendment guarantees a strong individual right to keep and bear arms, which includes the right to have arms for self defense in the home.
There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that this is an excellent result which gun owners should be very pleased with. The decision clearly and unambiguously establishes the strong and fundamental nature of the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Significantly, however, the Court noted that the right to keep and bear arms is not without limitations, just as the right to free speech is not unlimited. The Court stated that its decision should not be read to cast doubt on such laws as long standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or in such sensitive places as schools or government buildings and the like. Thus, the Court clearly signaled that there are a variety of gun laws which are permissible under the Second Amendment.
This has two significant implications for the future. First, it will take many future lawsuits to establish precisely what sort of laws are and are not permissible under the Second Amendment. Both sides will likely find themselves fighting that battle vigorously.
Second, those laws that are, in fact, permitted under the Second Amendment will form the fertile ground upon which future political activity will rest. It will remain the province of law abiding gun owners to oppose, politically, gun laws which, though constitutional, are nevertheless unwise and harmful to liberty and safety.

The Liberty Crew

​

</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

What was left out of this article is that they did not protect the right to not infringe and although people have the right to bear arms they decided that it should be balanced with whatever they seem reasonable. They decided that their is a right on behalf of the government to regulate and license gun owners however they seem fit. The anti-gun declares this a win for them because they intend to increase restrictions on the average gun owner such as a license requirement program to own a gun and more stringent background check laws and requirements. This will eliminate a lot of current gun owners
and create a lot of hoops to jump through just to own a gun. When their finished only a select few will be able to own a gun, just like old Mayor Guilani's CCW requirements he had in NYC, It was almost impossible for anyone to get their CCW and only a select few had theirs.

 

This was in no way a win for anti's as they could already pass anti-gun laws where they're allowed to. States that don't have pre-emption should pass it like NV did.

Some on this Court will allow millions of babies to be aborted yet they can't protect terrorists and child rapists enough. They have got to go!

 

<!--start--> Pelosi Says D.C. Could Continue Gun Regulation ​

The Hill
Thursday, June 26, 2008
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.
"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools."
- Mike Soraghan <!--end-->
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-0849512753345323"; google_ad_width = 336; google_ad_height = 280; google_ad_format = "336x280_as"; google_ad_type = "text_image"; //2007-05-08: prison planet article google_ad_channel = "5090512274"; google_color_border = "FFFFFF"; google_color_bg = "FFFFFF"; google_color_link = "000000"; google_color_text = "000000"; google_color_url = "000000"; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><iframe name="google_ads_frame" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-0849512753345323&dt=1214561065500&lmt=1214514856&format=336x280_as&output=html&correlator=1214561065500&channel=5090512274&url=http%3A%2F%2Fprisonplanet.com%2Farticles%2Fjune2008%2F260608_b_pelosi.htm&color_bg=FFFFFF&color_text=000000&color_link=000000&color_url=000000&color_border=FFFFFF&ad_type=text_image&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fprisonplanet.com%2F&frm=0&cc=36&ga_vid=4178812248585912300.1214561066&ga_sid=1214561066&ga_hid=2069562856&flash=9.0.115&u_h=600&u_w=800&u_ah=566&u_aw=800&u_cd=32&u_tz=-300&u_his=6&u_java=true&u_nplug=33&u_nmime=117" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="280" scrolling="no" width="336"></iframe>

 

Yep, now they will just make ridiculous requirements and licensing procedures for gun owners to widdle us down to a minute few!

See people you have to understand that they are afraid to take to much at one time from us!
They have to take a little nibble here and there till the whole pie is eaten and nobody even saw it disappear.

Just think for a moment what would have happened if they had ruled against us, and the next day they said "Alright you heard the judge, you have no right to own your gun now come over here and turn them in"!

Their would be a revolt bigger than that of 1776 between the colonists and British.

Their not stupid folks,
They won't take your guns away till only a few people have them.

They may say that assault rifles are "unreasonable" and are banned.
The handgun owner will just shrug his shoulders and say "oh well, I'm not getting involved in that it doesn't effect me so why bother"?
Then long range rifle owners (deer guns), then semi pistols, then shotgun owners, etc. till only a select few are left then they can make their move.

You say Bush's appointee's voted yes and did the right thing. Of course they did so that they can continue to move on this in a stealthy way like I explained above. We would have actually been better off before they had this ruling when they hadn't ruled that they could regulate.

 

I'm sorry but you have absolutely no clue about what you're talking about.

BS - places where they want lots of restrictions already have them. Smart places passed state preemption so it won't happen.

Tell that to the people in DC and Chicago who will now be able to own a gun. How's that for going backwards?

It seems nothing will make you happy but a complete ban on all gun laws going back to Miller. But just like a real pro-gun President, it ain't happening except in your mind. A very few years ago the vote would've been 4-5 against Heller and then you'd be bitching about that too. The NRA took a lot of heat for delaying this fight and it worked - we now have an individual right to own a gun.

 

Patriot...Dude, have you actualy read the MAJORITY opinion? Your responses sound like either you read the minority opinions (which have no bearing on law since they lost) or are takeing the word of MSM and the Brady bunch for what it says and they have been trying to distort and spin it since if everyone believes them then the actual ruleing dont matter and they can enforce 'laws' that even if passed dont exist since they contradict the Constitution and are therefore not even laws.



Yep, now they will just make ridiculous requirements and licensing procedures for gun owners to widdle us down to a minute few!

That wont work real well since it was plainly stated in the ruleing that any lisencing/registration must be simple and basic and can ONLY be denied for those who are felones or insane and would be a SHALL issue system rather than a MAY issue system.

Just think for a moment what would have happened if they had ruled against us, and the next day they said "Alright you heard the judge, you have no right to own your gun now come over here and turn them in"!


They wouldnt have been doing the round up even if it had come down the other way, they would simply have been able to say it wasnt a right for people to have guns and so pass all sorts of gun laws much easier than before (just like we will be able to remove them easier than before since it came down our way) and take the guns little by little. Now they take a big jump backward from that and it becomes much easier for us to keep it going in that direction.



They may say that assault rifles are "unreasonable" and are banned.
The handgun owner will just shrug his shoulders and say "oh well, I'm not getting involved in that it doesn't effect me so why bother"?

Actualy they came MUCH nearer saying that any small arms common to the military (M16 mentioned by name) would be specificaly covered under the 2A. That question was to far outside the actual scope of this case for it to be anwsered but it is clear if you read the opinion that had it been within the scope it likely would have happened with Scalia writeing it at least.

You say Bush's appointee's voted yes and did the right thing. Of course they did so that they can continue to move on this in a stealthy way like I explained above. We would have actually been better off before they had this ruling when they hadn't ruled that they could regulate.

This is the part that totaly blows me away and make me think you and I couldnt possibly have read the same decision. That would be an even bigger strech than the Brady bunch in the past saying that the 2A only applied to the military.


Check out the link and read it first hand. The majority decission is basicly the first 70 or so pages of it. While the decision isnt perfect it removes a great deal of what there is now, dose not mandate anything new and totaly hands us the oprotunity to open thing MUCH wider. While they did say SOME restrictions to what when and where were allowed, they didnt say they had to be AND made it clear that reasonable applied to things like trying to carry a flame thrower, S.A.W., L.A.W. or some such around town. They did basicly exclude concealed carry from being covered as a civil right but made it a very easy strech to say open carry would be.

 

I think they will go after the third box and restrict ammo. Let's take this golden opportunity to expose the people against it for what they are Commie socialists and vote them out.

 

For those who think this wasn't good, the first gun ban has fallen.

http://www.nbc5.com/news/16729972/detail.html

WILMETTE, Ill. -- Wilmette has suspended enforcement of its 19-year-old ordinance banning handgun possession in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that appears to invalidate such bans.

In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, a prohibition similar to those used in several major cities, including Chicago, and a handful of suburbs including Wilmette, Evanston, Winnetka and Oak Park.

"The Law Department and the Police Department have suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review by the Village Board," Wilmette village attorney Tim Frenzer said Thursday. "Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance."

Frenzer said questions remain about how directly the court's decision will impact local gun laws in Wilmette and other parts of the country. Washington is not a state, and each state has its own legal language governing the right to bear arms. <TABLE class=storyAd cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=storyAdObj><!-- Begin Ad tag: square--><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>IBSYS.ad.AdManager.registerPosition({"iframe": false,"addlSz": "","element": "ad_N69.33A3","interstitials": false,"beginDate": "","endDate": "","getSect": "","name": "square","qString": "","width": "300","height": "250","section": "","useId": "16729972","interactive": false,"useSameCategory": false,"topic": "","swSectionRoot": "","useZone": "","type": "DOM"});</SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/nbcu.chi.news/local;kw=news+square+16729972;comp=false;ad=true;pgtype=detail;tile=3;sz=300x250;ord=1214618011890?"></SCRIPT><!-- End Ad tag: square--></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

"That aside, the opinion will require further review and discussion by the Village Board, but it's prudent at this point to suspend enforcement of it," Frenzer said.

Wilmette's law, enacted in 1989, levied fines of up to $750 for handgun possession and allowed the village to seek a judge's order to have seized weapons destroyed.

Frenzer said he did not know exactly how many times the law has been invoked, but said its use is rare.

The last case he recalls involved a 2003 incident in which a resident, Hale DeMar, was cited after using a handgun to shoot and wound a burglar in his home. The case mobilized state gun right groups and led to the passage of a law that gave gun owners a defense to local prohibitions if the weapon was used in self-defense.

Wilmette's charges against DeMar were eventually dropped. He could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter declined to comment on the high court's ruling, saying he had not yet had a chance to read the decision or review it with village staff.

NBC5's Phil Rogers reported that Wilmette was not the only community with big decisions to make in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. Six Chicago area communities: Wilmette, Winnetka, Evanston, Chicago, Oak Park and Morton Grove, have outright handgun bans, dating back to 1981, which are now apparently illegal.

Eight other communities: Highland Park, Deerfield, Northbrook, River Grove, Westmont, Forest Park, Elk Grove Village and Niles, ban the sale or transfer of handguns within their city limits.

On Friday, the Chicago Tribune called for the repeal of the Second Amendment. But barring that, Rogers reported, the Supreme Court's decision seems to leave little wiggle room for refinement of existing laws.

"It's going to be very challenging, I think, for municipalities to hold on to the overall ban on a handgun," Frenzer said.

As local communities tried to determine exactly how the ruling affected them, many activists made it clear that they were not prepared to take "no" for an answer.

Civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson declared that if the law means more gun stores, he would fight to have a say as to where they are located. Jackson also likened the fight against gun violence to the struggle for civil rights.

"We have legalized access to weapons of mass destruction," Jackson said. "We have become the most violent nation on earth. We make the most guns and we shoot them."

NRA Files Suits In Chicago, Three Suburbs Challenging Gun Bans


The National Rifle Association has entered the fray over Chicago's handgun ban.

The NRA filed a lawsuit Friday against the city ban. It said it also filed comparable lawsuits in the suburbs of Evanston, Oak Park and Morton Grove. Several other pro-gun groups filed a separate lawsuit yesterday challenging Chicago's ban.

The flurry of litigation follows a Thursday U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a Washington, D.C. gun ban.

NRA lobbyist Chris Cox said the lawsuits are meant to ensure state and local governments adhere to the court's ruling.

He adds the NRA won't rest until the existing handgun bans are all struck down, but he said that attorneys for the pro-gun groups concede the fight over Chicago's ban could last years.

Anti-gun groups said the bans help stem the number of gun-related deaths and accidents.

 

From what I have read in the actual case and from skimming the Net for months the Supremes did indeed rule 100% in our favor here .

The problem is people thought they were going to rule on questions the case never asked of them .

Heller never prayed for relief from licensing so they wrote no opinion on it .

All they were asked to do is 1) define the 2A's intentions and meanings and in doing so rule if a ban of an entire class of weapons "handguns" was permitted and 2) rule on the whole trigger lock disassembly requirement which I think was actually a separate lawsuit that was rolled into Heller .

Saying that the 2A isn't without limitations was indeed the only "Common sense" gun law we have ever seen . After all restricting convicted felons and the mentally Ill from owning any guns are restrictions or regulations on the Amendment as are background checks .

It seems the first step pro 2A groups are going to take is file suits in states and cities with similar Bans to establish the fact that this ruling does indeed effect the States .

After that who knows what they will challenge , licensing , limits on purchases , open carry restrictions , or defining an "Infringement" such as ammo restrictions , other types of bans such as semiautos , the sky's the limit but the problem is it wont all be wrapped into one single case to clarify all of the laws involved .

We will be lucky if the most restrictive of these laws can be effectively challenged at the Supreme Court with less than a dozen cases .

Just as an example of how badly the antis want to win in all of this in places they think they can get away with banning semiauto handguns by redefining them as machine guns in various laws .

Hopefully these cases can be brought to bear in such a quick manner and with enough favorable outcomes in succession that these laws will begin to be removed from the states law books with language that will prevent them from ever being reintroduced .

 

123

 

I thought we were talking about Heller and your thinking it was some kind of defeat. I'm not wading through the pages of crap stuff you provide because, like most, I don't spend all day looking for conspiracies on the internet. That and the fact you post something that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. We know Bush is the devil, blah blah freaking blah. Thank God he got elected and appointed 2 SC judges!

This is the biggest victory for gun owners in decades but all we hear is whining from some that just don't get it.

 

Thank you Patriot, that would be helpful.

Does this ruling apply to some oddball one of a kind fire arm that there is only one of?