|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kepler
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: US Supreme Court Declares Individual Right to Own Firearms |
 |
|
The Supreme Court ruling was close (5-4). The four dissenting justices thought the right to bear arms was limited to militia activity in accordance with the preamble of the Second Amendment which speaks of a well regulated militia. The case does show how influential both interpretations of the Second Amendment have been. The decision could have easily gone the other way if George W. hadn't succeeded in appointing a few conservative justices to the court (Roberts and Alito). The future of gun control in the US is uncertain. The gun lobby now has plans to challenge all kinds of existing restrictions on firearms.
| Quote: |
Emboldened by Thursday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming the right of individuals to own handguns, advocates said they would immediately challenge a San Francisco law that prohibits guns in public housing and sue other cities nationwide to overturn gun restrictions.
The California lawsuit, which the National Rifle Assn. said it would file in federal court in San Francisco today, was one of several legal challenges that gun rights groups said they would pursue in the wake of the court decision.
"I expect there will be a significant number of California laws challenged because there have been a significant number of irrational and counterproductive laws passed in the state in recent years," said Chuck Michel, the NRA's chief attorney, who also represents other gun rights groups.
Hours after the Supreme Court ruling came down, two groups sued Chicago over its handgun ban, which is similar to the District of Columbia law the high court struck down. In addition, the NRA said it would file a lawsuit against Chicago today and would also sue surrounding cities that ban handguns.
"We are currently going over statutes at the local, state and federal level," NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said. "I am certain there will be challenges to all sorts of statutes as we move forward."
California, considered to have the most restrictive gun laws in the country, is a particularly attractive target for lawsuits by the gun lobby. Cox said the NRA was considering action against another San Francisco law that requires gun owners to store their guns in locked containers or use trigger locks.
Other California laws that gun rights groups plan to scrutinize include the state's ban on assault weapons, the permitting process for carrying a concealed weapon in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and restrictions in Los Angeles on gun retailers, Michel said. |
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-legal27-2008jun27,0,3173451.story
Last edited by Kepler on Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kepler
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
The US Supreme Court's ruling has led to felons challenging gun laws which prohibit them from owning firearms.
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.
As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.
"Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.... |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25753541
A felon who has been released from prison can exercise such fundamental rights as freedom of speech and religion so why not gun ownership if that is considered to be a fundamental right too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Bob Barr supports this ruling and the 2nd Amendment, unlike Obama and McCain:
|
I believe you meant to write: Bob Barr supports this ruling and this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, unlike Obama and McCain. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply there is only one correct way to interpret the Constitution.
It seems to me gun nuts are suffering from this: Mean World Syndrome is a phenomenon whereby the violence-related content of mass media convinces viewers that the world is more dangerous than it actually is, and prompts a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cornfed
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Finally some good news from the United Police States for a change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| It seems to me gun nuts are suffering from this: Mean World Syndrome is a phenomenon whereby the violence-related content of mass media convinces viewers that the world is more dangerous than it actually is, and prompts a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat. |
You could also say this:
It seems to me that anti-gun nuts are suffering from this: Mean Gun Syndrome is a phenomenon whereby the gun violence related content of mass media convinces viewers that the United States is more dangerous than it actually is, and prompts a desire for more restrictions on gun ownership than is warranted by any actual threat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReeseDog
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kepler wrote: |
| A felon who has been released from prison can exercise such fundamental rights as freedom of speech and religion so why not gun ownership if that is considered to be a fundamental right too? |
The amendment at issue it the second amendment. The first amendment addresses fundamental freedoms like speech, assembly, religion, etc.
As a gun owner, however, I agree with the way things are going. Better to have it and not need it, I say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good ruling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
At the time of the writing of the Constitution:
the word "militia" meant the individual citizens: farmers, shopkeepers, workers who owned firearms or weapons of any kind.
the word "regulated" had nothing to do with government, it just meant organized, functioning "regularly" or properly, or trained.
Yes, individuals have the right to bear arms, but it is not clear that the Constitution gives the government the right to be armed. This is a right that should be maintained exclusively by private citizens.
It is the existence of a national standing army and armed police that we need to be wary of and limit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
At the time of the writing of the Constitution:
the word "militia" meant the individual citizens: farmers, shopkeepers, workers who owned firearms or weapons of any kind.
the word "regulated" had nothing to do with government, it just meant organized, functioning "regularly" or properly, or trained.
Yes, individuals have the right to bear arms, but it is not clear that the Constitution gives the government the right to be armed. This is a right that should be maintained exclusively by private citizens.
It is the existence of a national standing army and armed police that we need to be wary of and limit. |
Umm...who wrote the Constitution? Was it not the leaders of the people of that time, in other words the "government"? If the government can not be armed, it certainly can't give other people arms or the right thereof.
Besides which cannot the government hire private citizens to join a army and police force? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Great ruling. For my next gun I'd like to get an Iuzzi. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
At the time of the writing of the Constitution:
the word "militia" meant the individual citizens: farmers, shopkeepers, workers who owned firearms or weapons of any kind.
the word "regulated" had nothing to do with government, it just meant organized, functioning "regularly" or properly, or trained.
Yes, individuals have the right to bear arms, but it is not clear that the Constitution gives the government the right to be armed. This is a right that should be maintained exclusively by private citizens.
It is the existence of a national standing army and armed police that we need to be wary of and limit. |
Umm...who wrote the Constitution? Was it not the leaders of the people of that time, in other words the "government"? If the government can not be armed, it certainly can't give other people arms or the right thereof.
Besides which cannot the government hire private citizens to join a army and police force? |
People wrote the Constitution. It's purpose was to establish and limit the powers of the government. Government gets its powers from the people, not the other way around. The people gave the government, what were intended to be, very limited powers.
The government is not the people and the people creating the government knew that. They preferred no government to a government that was overly strong.
And, yes, the government could recruit volunteers or hire paid soldiers or police with their own weapons. No problem. The weapons should belong to the individuals - not to the state.
The Right to Bear Arms was intended for the people to be armed so as to control, limit the power of, and overthrow, if necessary, the government that they had created. This right was reserved to the people and not to the state.
When dictatorships come to power, it is a universal that one of their first acts is to disarm the private citizens.
In the US, the gun control movement was started by the KKK as a way to disarm African Americans and make it easier for the Klan to control, intimidate, terrorize and kill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dick Heller, Plaintiff in 2nd Amendment Case, is Libertarian Nominee for Delegate to U.S. House
July 23rd, 2008
Dick Anthony Heller, the plaintiff in last month�s famous U.S. Supreme Court decision that said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a gun, is petitioning as the Libertarian nominee for Delegate to the U.S. House from the District of Columbia. He needs 3,000 signatures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kepler
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder if the ruling was as much a victory for gun control advocates as it was for the gun lobby. The Supreme Court seemed to put it its stamp of approval on many of the laws that the gun lobby has been opposing for years such as bans on guns in schools. I guess it didn't buy the argument that gun control is bad and is the slippery slope to a total ban on all guns.
| Quote: |
The gun rights crowd is getting worried. This isn't what they thought and hoped for. There is a reason why the NRA worked very hard to sabatoge Parker/Heller.
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/
Scoll down to July 2.
Among other things, all the following anti-gun laws are A-OK according to the Supreme Court:
*** Mandatory licensing to purchase firearms;
*** Bans on the open and concealed-carry of firearms;
*** Bans on private sales of firearms;
*** Bans of so-called assault weapons and other "unusual" weapons (that's the actual language Scalia uses);
*** Bans on firearms on government property;
*** Bans on certain calibers of ammunition;
*** Bans on high-powered hunting scopes;
*** One-month waiting periods;
*** One-gun-a-month schemes;
*** Mandatory ammunition fingerprinting. |
http://www.potowmack.org/vpc-reg.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It was a split decision. I have faith that someday the Court will revisit this issue and decide the other way. After all, the Court was wrong on Dred Scott and Plessy vs Ferguson and later corrected their errors. If Matt Dillon could make the cowboys turn in their guns while inside the city limits of Dodge without violating their Constitutional rights, it could still be done today. It will probably take a cultural revolution, but it could happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
