The second amendment is on the chopping block
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
Uh oh...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071111/ts_alt_afp/usjusticeweapons
WASHINGTON (AFP) - For the first time in 70 years, the US Supreme Court may decide next week whether to examine the question of the right to bear arms, something which is fiercely upheld by millions of Americans.
ADVERTISEMENT
The US capital of Washington, which is trying to stem a wave of violence in its seedier neighborhoods, has lodged a case with the nine Supreme Court judges seeking to maintain its three-decade ban on individuals carrying handguns.
The judges were due to have an initial discussion on Friday, and their decision on whether or not to examine the question could be announced as early as Tuesday.
The case goes right to the heart of the American constitution, which in its second amendment declares 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."
Washington, which is also home to the president and the government, has interpreted the amendment to mean that there is a collective right to bear arms for those who are part of a police force or a security force.
But since 1976, it has banned residents from carrying handguns, although they are allowed to keep a rifle or hunting gun in their homes, providing it is locked and not loaded.
For millions of Americans though, and especially the powerful gun lobby represented by the National Rifle Association, the second amendment guarantees the right of every American citizen to own any gun, with few limits.
In 2003, Washington resident Dick Heller, who lives in one of the city's tougher districts, lodged a suit against the local authorities saying his constitutional right to bear arms was being violated. Although his case was initially rejected, he won on appeal to a federal appeals court in March.
Washington officials in turn then lodged a case with the Supreme Court in September insisting that it must rule on the extent of access to handguns, the weapon of choice in two-thirds of robberies and assaults.
Handguns are also used in half of the 15,000 murders across the country every year, according to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigations.
"Faced with the evidence that handguns pose a particularly serious threat to public safety, the council chose to ban handguns because it concluded that less restrictive regulations would be ineffective," the city said in its petition to the court.
"Whatever right the second amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die."
If the court decides to examine the case, it would likely be heard sometime between February and April, with a ruling before the end of June, just a few months before the November 2008 presidential elections.
To date the Supreme Court has rarely considered the issue of the right to bear arms.
In the 19th century, it determined that the founding fathers meant the amendment to remain the remit of federal laws and left all the states in the union free to draw up their own gun laws.
Then in 1939, the court upheld a law requiring that arms transported from state to state should be registered.
But all states have formulated their own restrictions, which vary wildly.
Heller believes that the laws in Washington, which are similar to those in many big cities such as Chicago, New York or Detroit, are not just unconstitutional but also ineffective.
Last year in the city with 580,000 residents, there were 169 murders, 137 by firearms.
"This case presents the court a unique opportunity to correct a persistent misconception that the people do not actually enjoy a right that is specifically enumerated in the constitution," Heller says in his petition.
"'The people' -- individuals in our country -- retain the right to keep and bear arms."
His case is being backed by the American Civil Rights Union which says in his support: "This case presents questions of the highest importance, involving the fundamental meaning of the second amendment.
"In over 200 years, this court has still not resolved the basic questions regarding the amendment's meaning."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071111/ts_alt_afp/usjusticeweapons
WASHINGTON (AFP) - For the first time in 70 years, the US Supreme Court may decide next week whether to examine the question of the right to bear arms, something which is fiercely upheld by millions of Americans.
ADVERTISEMENT
The US capital of Washington, which is trying to stem a wave of violence in its seedier neighborhoods, has lodged a case with the nine Supreme Court judges seeking to maintain its three-decade ban on individuals carrying handguns.
The judges were due to have an initial discussion on Friday, and their decision on whether or not to examine the question could be announced as early as Tuesday.
The case goes right to the heart of the American constitution, which in its second amendment declares 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."
Washington, which is also home to the president and the government, has interpreted the amendment to mean that there is a collective right to bear arms for those who are part of a police force or a security force.
But since 1976, it has banned residents from carrying handguns, although they are allowed to keep a rifle or hunting gun in their homes, providing it is locked and not loaded.
For millions of Americans though, and especially the powerful gun lobby represented by the National Rifle Association, the second amendment guarantees the right of every American citizen to own any gun, with few limits.
In 2003, Washington resident Dick Heller, who lives in one of the city's tougher districts, lodged a suit against the local authorities saying his constitutional right to bear arms was being violated. Although his case was initially rejected, he won on appeal to a federal appeals court in March.
Washington officials in turn then lodged a case with the Supreme Court in September insisting that it must rule on the extent of access to handguns, the weapon of choice in two-thirds of robberies and assaults.
Handguns are also used in half of the 15,000 murders across the country every year, according to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigations.
"Faced with the evidence that handguns pose a particularly serious threat to public safety, the council chose to ban handguns because it concluded that less restrictive regulations would be ineffective," the city said in its petition to the court.
"Whatever right the second amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die."
If the court decides to examine the case, it would likely be heard sometime between February and April, with a ruling before the end of June, just a few months before the November 2008 presidential elections.
To date the Supreme Court has rarely considered the issue of the right to bear arms.
In the 19th century, it determined that the founding fathers meant the amendment to remain the remit of federal laws and left all the states in the union free to draw up their own gun laws.
Then in 1939, the court upheld a law requiring that arms transported from state to state should be registered.
But all states have formulated their own restrictions, which vary wildly.
Heller believes that the laws in Washington, which are similar to those in many big cities such as Chicago, New York or Detroit, are not just unconstitutional but also ineffective.
Last year in the city with 580,000 residents, there were 169 murders, 137 by firearms.
"This case presents the court a unique opportunity to correct a persistent misconception that the people do not actually enjoy a right that is specifically enumerated in the constitution," Heller says in his petition.
"'The people' -- individuals in our country -- retain the right to keep and bear arms."
His case is being backed by the American Civil Rights Union which says in his support: "This case presents questions of the highest importance, involving the fundamental meaning of the second amendment.
"In over 200 years, this court has still not resolved the basic questions regarding the amendment's meaning."
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
That's what I was thinking. I can't see it happening either.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
cute thread title. but this concerns you how exactly? soul is right, they wont take this case and the second amendment isnt going anywhere.
yes they have:
Few would argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own personal nuclear weapons, but there is really nothing in the 2nd Amendment allowing restrictions on future technological developments in arms. The 1st Amendment is not limited to 18th century printing technology, or 18th century religions. U.S. versus Miller indicated that the weapons protected were weapons "commonly in use by soldiers". This would mean that the 2nd Amendment protects private ownership of not only semi-automatic "assault weapons", but also actual military assault rifles, which can fire either semi-automatic, three-shot bursts, or fully automatic mode.
U.S. vs. Miller, one of the few cases in this century where the Supreme Court ruled directly on a law in relation to the 2nd Amendment, is one in which a law, prohibiting the possession of a sawed-off shotgun, was upheld only because the weapon was not shown to be one which could serve the purposes of a well regulated militia. In other words, the gun was not a proper tool for a soldier, therefore it was not protected.
http://www.trollcave.com/2nd_Amendment.html
We do it with smokers, yes you can smoke, but not here, not in this public place.
How does this concern me? I think it's a problem to take people freedoms away, especially those pertaining to the constitution.
Seeing how all of North America is connected by land, it's all ripples in a pond so to speak.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
actually it doesnt. nothing regarding the US constitution concerns you. move on
I disagree. That's like saying I have no interest for matters concerning my friends and family.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
yes it does; but here's another clip from the website i posted earlier:
Even if we could think of a consitutional way to disarm everybody without leaving the criminals as the only armed people, we cannot simply ignore the 2nd Amendment. It was not lightly made, and it should not be lightly thrown out. Many of our basic liberties include a price in safety. Free speech can be misused to slander and ruin reputations, and it is frustrating that the KKK has the 1st Amendment right to hold rallies and shout hateful things. The 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments can make it difficult to arrest and prosecute criminals. The 8th Amendment may prevent capital punishment in cases where our outrage very strongly demands revenge, so that the one innocent man can have a chance to live and prove his innocence. America is built on the principle that these liberties are worth the risks
the US cannot find all the guns in america and only gestapo like tactics can disarm the people. this would violate several ammendments. even those against guns wouldn't like or stand for those tactics when their houses are searched and their rights violated. we're getting closer to 666 but americans will fight and die for our rights; just as we've done for the past 200 plus years.
I agree. To me, all one has to do is compare the nukes principle between countries with guns, citizens, and criminals. It quickly becomes apparent that by taking gun ownership away from citizens it's creates a bit of a situation.
Criminals will have guns one way or the other. It's like putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage for obeying the law.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
it concerns the entire world. if america will be involved in a revolution against the government; foreign aid will stop and the countries we protect will be left open to attack.
there is no doubt that if the constitution is changed to limit our rights; 175 million american insurgents will move to correct it. we do things like that. many of us have taken an oath to protect the constitution at some point in our lives. the supreme court will first have to conclude that a person doesn't have a right to protect themselves. let's see how that goes over.
and just like in 1936 germany; the honest people were disarmed; not the criminals or what was then called the underground.
that's too hard to do love. when i carry; nobody knows. i once saw a video where a bloke in a suit pulled out 17 handguns from his person and you couldn't tell from looking at him that he had a single one. it was a point taken to the extreem to show that you never know. laws are only for those who abide by them.
I'm surprised it even got put forward on a federal level over a state issue.
With all the talk about the need for increased security, I'm still wondering how it even made the headlines.
Talk about creating the need to rely on the government for protection.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I think the gun laws in rural regions should fit the requirements of the region... and gun laws in urban areas should relflect the environment there. There is a huge difference between Los Angeles and Lone Pine. I can see more liberal gun sales in Lone Pine and restrictions in Los Angeles. But, when the Lone Pine guy comes to L.A.... leave the fucking arsenal in Lone Pine.
Hail, Hail!!!
you make a good point. i was sick in bed for a couple weeks. i watched some judge shows and i was shocked over how many people have been in jail. even the sweetest little girl (in my eyes) said she was in jail. your post made me realize that in LA for example; a good number of the population are past or present felons who don't have a right to carry a gun. so in those areas; stricter restrictions are needed. there may be 1 felon in lone pine and the population shouldn't be punished for that one guy.
spot on mate!
i can see what they're trying to do but they also have to consider past rulings. the supreme court has always upheld a persons right to defend themselves. they can't make a determination like although the criminal has a gun; you are only allowed to protect yourself with a knife. i actually prefer a knife over a gun but that's another discussion.
The argument is now the right to bear handguns and rifles....which is meaningless in my opinion.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I hear what you're saying, it is a watering down, but how many of the average "pop a cap" street criminals outside of cartel level drug dealers are packing uzi's and ak-47's?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i legally bear arms and carry conceald weapons so i don't know what you're talking about.
in US v Miller; the supreme court decided that the second amendment states that a citizen is allowed ALL WEAPONS THAT WOULD BE USED BY A SOLDIER.
since organized crime is the biggest contributor to organizations against the second amendment; they may be opening a can of worms if US v Miller is cited and current laws ordered thrown out.
http://www.trollcave.com/2nd_Amendment.html
So you can own missiles, bombs and nuclear weapons?
Face it, the spirit of the law was that average citizens could have weapons that would theoretically put them on par with the armies of the day. We simply can't own weapons that do that anymore.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It's not about that. The 2nd amendment was about protection from militaries and armies.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
True, but look at how well that's gone. The current administration has quite literally raped it's people. :-)
germany disarmed the public so they couldn't resist when the government sent millions to concentration camps and gas chambers. an armed society wouldn't allow that.
Few would argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own personal nuclear weapons, but there is really nothing in the 2nd Amendment allowing restrictions on future technological developments in arms. The 1st Amendment is not limited to 18th century printing technology, or 18th century religions.
http://www.trollcave.com/2nd_Amendment.html
There's a lot more of a difference than just that.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Believe what you want, but I believe you are fooling yourself.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If we were armed with handguns, we couldn't stop it if the army we're facing has bombs, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.