Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
gun control saving grace >

gun control saving grace

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

gun control saving grace

Old 01-11-2013, 08:39 PM
  #1  
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
 
bigbulls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
Default gun control saving grace

The Supreme Court recently reuled on the Heller vs. D.C. It is my understanding that the ruling........

Assures us the right to keep and bear arms for self defense and applies to all firearms in "common use" at the time.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.
Many of the firearms that are on the perverbial chopping block are about as common as apple pie in America.






The opinion also states.....
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Notice it specifically addresses the M16 rifle and the like and specifically protests those types of firearms.





It also states......
As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.



So, knowing this how in the hell could any sort of new ban on firearms pass congressional muster?
I don't see how it could.


.
bigbulls is offline  
Old 01-12-2013, 04:55 AM
  #2  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,274
Default

Who is going to stop them? Do you really put that much faith in nine people dressed in black robes? Remember, Roberts recently claimed his job was not to save the American people from their government they voted for.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 01-12-2013, 05:21 AM
  #3  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Cool

Thanks to Bigbulls for posting that. I hope it quiets people here babbling about tanks, rocket launchers, etc.

And Mr. Mouse, Roberts was referring to the Obamacare decision. It's not up to the Supreme Court to protect us from politicians like Obama. We could have defeated Obama in the last election. But no, we had to nominate Romney.
sachiko is offline  
Old 01-12-2013, 06:01 AM
  #4  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,274
Default

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post
Thanks to Bigbulls for posting that. I hope it quiets people here babbling about tanks, rocket launchers, etc.

And Mr. Mouse, Roberts was referring to the Obamacare decision. It's not up to the Supreme Court to protect us from politicians like Obama. We could have defeated Obama in the last election. But no, we had to nominate Romney.
Yes, it was the Obamacare decision. However, clearly he doesn't understand the constitution is in place to save us from mob rule. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. The minority (in this case the gun owners of America) are to be protected from the majority out there wanting to seize our guns. I don't have faith in Roberts making the correct call when it comes to protecting our right.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 01-12-2013, 06:32 AM
  #5  
Nontypical Buck
 
RobertSubnet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,728
Default

The minority (in this case the gun owners of America) are to be protected from the majority out there wanting to seize our guns.
I am not so sure about that. I believe there is a minority what wants to take/limit the firearms the majority has. However the minority is amplified by a compliant media to make it look as though a majority of Americans are in favor of gun control.
RobertSubnet is offline  
Old 01-12-2013, 06:57 AM
  #6  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Cool

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
Yes, it was the Obamacare decision. However, clearly he doesn't understand the constitution is in place to save us from mob rule. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. The minority (in this case the gun owners of America) are to be protected from the majority out there wanting to seize our guns. I don't have faith in Roberts making the correct call when it comes to protecting our right.
Actually, he's already made the correct call twice on the second amendment. But he's only one justice. If Obama gets to replace him or one of his four conservative colleagues with the likes of Kagan or Sotomayor, we can kiss the second amendment bye-bye.

I posted several thousand times that the next decision will be crucial in that it will establish what are "reasonable restrictions." The right to keeps and bear arms means nothing if an Obama court decides that reasonable means you have the right to keep and bear a single-shot rifle.
sachiko is offline  
Old 01-12-2013, 07:27 AM
  #7  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,274
Default

Originally Posted by RobertSubnet View Post
I am not so sure about that. I believe there is a minority what wants to take/limit the firearms the majority has. However the minority is amplified by a compliant media to make it look as though a majority of Americans are in favor of gun control.
You may question weather or not gun owners are or are not a minority. However, have you read the idiotic comments from the libs on this board? Who needs more than a 10 round clip? Who needs an assualt riffle for hunting?

Steph,

I have no faith in Roberts and I have no faith in any person wearing a robe upholding precedence. I fully believe the court wants to forge new ground on this.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 01-12-2013, 08:00 AM
  #8  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Cool

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
Steph,

I have no faith in Roberts and I have no faith in any person wearing a robe upholding precedence. I fully believe the court wants to forge new ground on this.
They have already forged new ground Sir. They ruled that the second amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, not the right of a militia.

In the next decision they ruled that the second amendment, like the others, applies to THE STATES. They did allow for the application of "reasonable restrictions," but they didn't rule on what reasonable restrictions might be because that was not an issue.

Those two decisions were totally new ground. Sheeesh.

Judge Posner's decision says that Illinois' restrictions are not reasonable and are unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court will have the final say. We can only hope that the justices, including Roberts, who gave us the first two are still on the Court.

Last edited by sachiko; 01-12-2013 at 08:03 AM.
sachiko is offline  
Old 01-12-2013, 08:27 AM
  #9  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,274
Default

Again, all that can be flipped upside down by the current court if moved by the tragedy in CT or one replacement to the court.

I hope gun owners are prepared for civil disobedience against our federal government. I'm not talking about civil war, I'm talking about ignoring in mass new gun laws Obama has been just waiting to enact.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 01-12-2013, 02:32 PM
  #10  
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
 
bigbulls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
Default

My point in this is that in order for any new "assault weapons" ban to actually stand, the supreme court would literally have to reverse a major landmark decision that they made just 4 years ago.

They did allow for the application of "reasonable restrictions," but they didn't rule on what reasonable restrictions might be because that was not an issue.
Yes, but didn't they rule that, specifically, the states had the right to apply "reasonable restrictions".

I hope gun owners are prepared for civil disobedience against our federal government. I'm not talking about civil war, I'm talking about ignoring in mass new gun laws Obama has been just waiting to enact.
I am and I preach it to every gun owner that cares to listen. They can not take our guns if we don't willingly let them have them. If we stand together as one, all 110 million of us with our 300 million plus firearms, there is nothing, short of bombs and tanks, that they can do to us.
bigbulls is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.