| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: The Supreme Court & case that can settle the 2nd Amendme |
 |
|
Historic case may decide U.S. gun rights
It presents what Georgetown University Law Center Professor Randy Barnett calls a "clean case."
"There is really no precedent standing in the way of the court enforcing the original meaning of this provision," Professor Barnett told reporters recently. "That's what makes this a historic case. That's what makes it a case that none of us � have probably witnessed in our lifetime and may never witness again."
The justices must decide what the authors of the Second Amendment meant when they wrote and approved these words: "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."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080318/ts_csm/aguns
It's been 70 years coming. Maybe this time the Court will get it right. I wonder if I'm being overly-optimistic that a conservative-dominated Court will make some reasonable restrictions on guns? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I purchased a gun at a huge local gun show last month.
The entire affair seemed to be running at a frantic feverish pitch,
but I hadn't been to a gun show in 20+ years and assumed that was normal.
I browsed a while and made my selection. Filled out the application and questionnaire.
While the dealer was on hold on the phone with the ATF doing my background check, I casually asked if he'd been busy all weekend.
He said, "It's been busy all year. Everybody's worried about them DEMocrats."
I gathered that the sentiment is to get 'em while you still can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mole wrote: |
I purchased a gun at a huge local gun show last month.
The entire affair seemed to be running at a frantic feverish pitch,
but I hadn't been to a gun show in 20+ years and assumed that was normal.
I browsed a while and made my selection. Filled out the application and questionnaire.
While the dealer was on hold on the phone with the ATF doing my background check, I casually asked if he'd been busy all weekend.
He said, "It's been busy all year. Everybody's worried about them DEMocrats."
I gathered that the sentiment is to get 'em while you still can. |
...cue the banjo-playing imbred child on the front porch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
...cue the banjo-playing imbred child on the front porch. |
Thank you. I didn't want to bring up an image like that in my response. But since you did, I'll run with it. 
I had decided to take my K-wife there since it was around the corner from the flea market and in the same building as the fancy-schmancy antique show.
She had never seen a gun off the TV or movie screen.
It was amazing the arm loads and bags full of stuff people were walking out with.
"Junior, you carry the "little" guns. Junior2, carry the night vision and long range opticals.
Ma, take the riot control/duck hunting guns. I'll carry the .50 cal sniper/deer rifle..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the issue has been settled from the start. the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed".
don't like it? move. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mistermasan wrote: |
the issue has been settled from the start. the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed".
don't like it? move. |
Have you notified the Supreme Court of your decision? I'm sure they'll be glad to know of your decision since that will make their job so much easier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court & case that can settle the 2nd Ame |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Historic case may decide U.S. gun rights
It presents what Georgetown University Law Center Professor Randy Barnett calls a "clean case."
"There is really no precedent standing in the way of the court enforcing the original meaning of this provision," Professor Barnett told reporters recently. "That's what makes this a historic case. That's what makes it a case that none of us � have probably witnessed in our lifetime and may never witness again."
The justices must decide what the authors of the Second Amendment meant when they wrote and approved these words: "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."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080318/ts_csm/aguns
It's been 70 years coming. Maybe this time the Court will get it right. I wonder if I'm being overly-optimistic that a conservative-dominated Court will make some reasonable restrictions on guns? |
Lets begin with the sopposed quote from the bill of rights.
There is no hyphen between the words 'well' and 'regulated' in the original writing of the BoR, this is the first thing that would weakan the credibility of the article.
I'll be back with more later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| what's the difference between 'well-regulated' and 'well regulated'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's another article. This one has some quotes from what the Justices said during the hearing.
Justices agree on right to own guns
WASHINGTON - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.
Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
| what's the difference between 'well-regulated' and 'well regulated'? |
One is in the original document the other is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Here's another article. This one has some quotes from what the Justices said during the hearing.
Justices agree on right to own guns
WASHINGTON - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.
Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns |
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?flash=true&page=transcript&doc=13&title=Transcript+of+Bill+of+Rights+%281791%29 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is this the one with the treasure map on the back? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the original title appears to be 'Congrefs of the United States' (wtf letter is that, anyway?) - should we question the credibility of those who spell it 'Congress' as well? spelling mistakes are annoying, i agree, but:
1) spelling mistakes don't make an argument invalid
2) 'well-regulated' and 'well regulated' are both correct... the constitution has not been misquoted, let alone misinterpreted
i hereby conclude that you have nothing meaningful to say about the topic... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
| the original title appears to be 'Congrefs of the United States' (wtf letter is that, anyway?) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
