# Big Win for Gun Rights!



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

The Supreme Court just struck down the Washington DC gun ban!


----------



## Rustyaxecamp (Mar 1, 2005)

:woohoo1::woohoo1::woohoo1::woohoo1:


----------



## gregtachyon (Dec 26, 2006)

This is long over due!
Chicago is next!

Greg


----------



## BarryPatch (Jul 21, 2004)

gregtachyon said:


> This is long over due!
> Chicago is next!
> 
> Greg


Yes it is. Someone will try to register an "unregisterable" handgun and the ban will be overturned.


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)




----------



## gunrod (Jan 16, 2001)

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080626/NEWS07/80626034

Don't get too excited. While it's a big win that will help set precedents for the future but it only passed 5-4. That's scary.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

gunrod said:


> http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080626/NEWS07/80626034
> 
> Don't get too excited. While it's a big win that will help set precedents for the future but it only passed 5-4. That's scary.


Almost every decision this court has made, has been a 5-4 decision. It's a sign of the times.


----------



## KEITH207 (Feb 17, 2005)

Rustyaxecamp said:


> :woohoo1::woohoo1::woohoo1::woohoo1:


----------



## fubar07 (Nov 6, 2007)

Ya but at least it is a win in our favor and it did'nt go the wrong way! A win is a win


----------



## Nealbopper (May 28, 2008)

I heard the only reason it passed is because one of the Supream Court Judges that voted for the overturn was a democrat / left leaning judge. All the conservative judges voted to overturn the ruling but the one Democrat judge that joined them is now facing HEAVY pressure because of his vote.
There are 5 Democrat judges and 4 Republicans. It was soooo close. :tdo12: Woo Hoo.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

Nealbopper said:


> I heard the only reason it passed is because one of the Supream Court Judges that voted for the overturn was a democrat / left leaning judge. All the conservative judges voted to overturn the ruling but the one Democrat judge that joined them is now facing HEAVY pressure because of his vote.
> There are 5 Democrat judges and 4 Republicans. It was soooo close. :tdo12: Woo Hoo.


I heard it was Kennedy that was the swing vote. The NRA is filing lawsuits today in every city that guns are banned. Including, Chicago, Chicago burbs, and San Francisco.


----------



## yooperkenny (Jul 13, 2004)

gregtachyon said:


> ...Chicago is next!...


And San Francisco! Can you imagine? :evil:

"This is long over due!" - Yeah, according to Yahoo "the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history"


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns


----------



## ALLEYES (May 5, 2006)

Thanks God that Bush got to appoint some justices. If a Dem was in office during that time this would have never happened.


----------



## Spey (Jul 27, 2004)

I'll be interested to read the opinions, as their reasoning will be the base for future rulings.


----------



## SteveS (Mar 6, 2003)

gregtachyon said:


> This is long over due!
> Chicago is next!
> 
> Greg


Hopefully. It is unclear if this will apply to state laws.


----------



## SteveS (Mar 6, 2003)

ALLEYES said:


> Thanks God that Bush got to appoint some justices. If a Dem was in office during that time this would have never happened.


That isn't always a sure thing. Bush senior appointed the conservative David Souter and he has turned out to be a nightmare. BTW, he voted no on this case.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Bases loaded pop up.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

ESOX said:


> Bases loaded pop up.


Clete got a walk at least.


----------



## autumnlovr (Jul 21, 2003)

Rustyaxecamp said:


> :woohoo1::woohoo1::woohoo1::woohoo1:


:bouncy: :bouncy: :bouncy: :bouncy: :bouncy: :bouncy: Makes me feel like dancing, or going out & buying a new gun!


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

ALLEYES said:


> Thanks God that Bush got to appoint some justices. If a Dem was in office during that time this would have never happened.


The Bush administration testified that unrestricted gun ownership is a threat to society,  I'm just glad the SC didn't agree with the Bush administration.


----------



## Hoppe's no.10 (Sep 16, 2007)

Sib said:


> The Bush administration testified that unrestricted gun ownership is a threat to society,  I'm just glad the SC didn't agree with the Bush administration.


Unrestricted gun ownership is definitely *NOT* the law of the land _vis-a-vis_ this Supreme Court decision - (Associated Press):

But he (Scalia) said nothing in the ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."


And in a concluding paragraph to the 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."


If Gore or Kerry had been elected instead of Bush this decision would never have been reached and would have gone 5-4 against the rights of American (and Michigan Sportsman) gun owners.


Hoppe's no.10


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

Sib said:


> The Bush administration testified that unrestricted gun ownership is a threat to society,  I'm just glad the SC didn't agree with the Bush administration.


I've never heard this. Do you have a link? I agree with "Restricted" (very subjective word, huh?) gun ownership. I wouldn't want any mentally distraught persons, convicted felons, or people guilty of gun crimes, legally buying guns.


----------



## BarryPatch (Jul 21, 2004)

Sib said:


> The Bush administration testified that unrestricted gun ownership is a threat to society,  I'm just glad the SC didn't agree with the Bush administration.


Whatever - I live in Obamaland (swoon). If you forget to register your shotgun each year it becomes "unregisterable". Your people suck. It's about time you realize it.


----------



## eddiejohn4 (Dec 23, 2005)

Although I am indeed happy, I really think we need to make it clear that the 2nd is not up to the interpetation of rotating judges. The right of the people shall not be infringed is enough for me. thatr is why it is the 2nd amendment right after freedom of speech.


----------



## djd (Feb 21, 2008)

Congratulations to the U.S.A. I live in Canada and you have know idea how difficult we have it. The firearms holders are treated like crimminals here!


----------



## Rootsy (Nov 1, 2006)

QuakrTrakr said:


> I've never heard this. Do you have a link? I agree with "Restricted" (very subjective word, huh?) gun ownership. I wouldn't want any mentally distraught persons, convicted felons, or people guilty of gun crimes, legally buying guns.


How bout if you and your brother or you and your wife had an argument and you were charged and convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. 

Why shouldn't a felon who's paid his debt to society be restored his rights... If they are THAT dangerous to society then stop handing down mickey mouse sentences... Keep them out of society.

The Solicitor General of the US, on behalf of the Presidency testified in the oral arguments AGAINST ownership and individual rights.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

there are no unrestricted rights under our constitution. each right has limitations and exceptions. in an extreme example, if gun ownership were completely unrestricted, school children could carry fully automatic weapons to class.

what this decision did was to define gun ownership as a individual right, rather than a collective right of the states "to form a militia". it also struck down the wholesale ban on the ownership of handguns in D.C. and that will probably apply to other cities.

it's historic, because this is the first time the US Supreme Court has defined the 2nd amendment as an individual right. but as a practical matter, there will be very little change in the laws regarding gun ownership for the majority of the population.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

Rootsy said:


> How bout if you and your brother or you and your wife had an argument and you were charged and convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.


Simple, don't beat up people.


----------



## Rootsy (Nov 1, 2006)

QuakrTrakr said:


> Simple, don't beat up people.


I fully agree with that... but we would be kidding ourselves to believe that there aren't quite a few out there who've lost their rights under the Lautenberg Act for falsified statements and self defense in an aggression situation. It's a very bad law...


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

Rootsy said:


> I fully agree with that... but we would be kidding ourselves to believe that there aren't quite a few out there who've lost their rights under the Lautenberg Act for falsified statements and self defense in an aggression situation. It's a very bad law...


Point made. I agree.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

QuakrTrakr said:


> I've never heard this. Do you have a link? I agree with "Restricted" (very subjective word, huh?) gun ownership. I wouldn't want any mentally distraught persons, convicted felons, or people guilty of gun crimes, legally buying guns.


Here's an article and link on this:

*Bush Administration Backs Gun-Control Law*


Sunday, January 13, 2008 6:16 PM
Newsmax
A District of Columbia gun-control law struck down by a federal court has won surprise support from the Bush administration.


On Friday, U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the Supreme Court to rule that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not absolute and is limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" by the government and that all federal restrictions on firearms should be upheld, according to the Los Angeles Times.


In his brief, Clement stated that such reasonable regulations include the federal ban on machine guns and other "particularly dangerous types of firearms," and that the government forbids gun possession by felons, drug users, "mental defectives" and people subject to restraining orders.


"*Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," Clement said in his filing concerning the District's ban on keeping handguns at home for self-defense, which a federal court has ruled violates the Second Amendment.*


Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, told the Times he saluted the administration for recognizing a need for limits on gun rights. Alan Gura, a key gun-rights advocate leading the challenge to the District of Columbia's gun law, said he was disappointed over the administration's position, adding that he was troubled that Clement advised the justices to send the case back for further hearings in a lower court.


"We are not happy. We are very disappointed the administration is hostile to individual rights. This is definitely hostile to our position," Gura said.


The Times noted that later this year the Supreme Court is expected to "rule squarely on whether the Second Amendment gives individuals a right to have a gun despite laws or ordinances restricting firearms."


That amendment provides that "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." Pro-gun-control groups insist that that the law applies to militias, such as the national guard, and not individuals.


In the case now before the court, the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's ordinance is at issue. Clement in his brief agreed that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations," and contends that D.C.'s ban on handguns goes too far and is probably unconstitutional.


He cautioned, however, that the court should move cautiously and make clear that the Second Amendment does not threaten most current restrictions on guns and gun owners, and said the court should stop short of striking down the D.C. ordinance on its own, and that the case should be sent back to a trial judge, the Times reported.


"The D.C. ban may well fail constitutional scrutiny," he said, because it totally forbids private citizens from having a handgun at home. Such a ruling however, should not threaten other laws, he said. "Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood . . . calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms."


The court will hear arguments in the D.C. case in late March.


In another development, President Bush signed the nation's first new gun-control legislation in 14 years on Saturday to help keep guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill. The law appropriates $250 million a year for states and their courts to computerize their records on mentally ill people and forward the information to to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to prevent anyone who is seriously mentally ill, a criminal or who has a restraining order against them for domestic violence from buying a gun.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

Sib said:


> In his brief, Clement stated that such reasonable regulations include the federal ban on machine guns and other "particularly dangerous types of firearms," and that the government forbids gun possession by felons, drug users, "mental defectives" and people subject to restraining orders.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with Bush except for the "machine gun" item. "Machine Gun" needs to be defined. I don't mind AR's or even AK's, but RPG's and other weapons like that shouldn't be allowed.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

bush has been terrible for gun owners and sportsmen.

i'm not saying that his democratic rivals would have been better, but his land management and gun stance has been absolutely horrible.

i posted this article months ago here, and it didn't get one response.

many are blinded in thinking that republicans in general are for hunting and gun rights.

but we need to keep a close eye on all politicians. typical party lines no longer apply.

this was a huge win.

let's hope we go another 70 years before the supreme court hears another 2nd amm. issue.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

You're right RZ. There are a lot of Republicrats nowdays. You really need to find a politicians individual stance on gun issues.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

this case is the tip of the iceberg for gun rights.

the immediate effect in DC is probably going to be minimal. there are obviously no gun stores in DC. citizens can't purchase and transport guns across state lines - it's a violation of federal law.

so to purchase a gun in maryland and virginia, and get it to DC, it would need to be shipped to a valid FFL holder. of course, they don't exist right now. and it might take some time, as the District public officials will do all they can to restrict sale, and deter shops from opening up.

the early shops will have a hard go at it - with crime as high as it's ever been and intense scrutiny on sales.

nonetheless, its a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

the next step is to interject the 14th amendment into the mix - that is - equal application of civil rights for all citizens. federal concealed carry laws and ownership rights. shouldn't matter where you live, period. laws remain the same.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

QuakrTrakr said:


> You're right RZ. There are a lot of Republicrats nowdays. You really need to find a politicians individual stance on gun issues.


yes, but the issue is even deeper than that.

one democrat may be pro gun, but his party in general may be anti gun. and you need to consider who he will appoint to committees that create laws.

similarly, a republican may be pro gun. but, as we've seen - 4 different republicans have sponsored the renewed assault weapons ban, and bush would sign it.

personally, i believe we've lost control at the federal level. grass roots. bring the cases, support the local jurisdictions. there's a huge movement afoot in rural illinois to remove gun restrictions.

federal lawmakers will take their cues from local lawmakers.


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


----------



## Rootsy (Nov 1, 2006)

There exists at least one 01 FFL holder in the District of Columbia... I highly doubt they'll be selling any guns to anyone.. especially peasants...

Anyone know who I'm speaking of?


----------



## KLR (Sep 2, 2006)

Atf???


----------



## Rootsy (Nov 1, 2006)

Sorry, next peasant please


----------

