2nd Amendment Ruling

[ToUtahNow]

Finally the Courts get something right:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

So it looks like guns will be legal in DC as long as they are in your home but you will not be able to transport them according to the Mayor. So the question will be how do you bring them home from the gun store or take them to a range? My guess is DC will be back in court soon being sued for not allowing the transportation of the gun.

Mark

[Tyman]

Unfortunately the decision was close (5-4).:confused:

As usually the local media in my area which Paul Helmke was Mayor and now head of the Brady campaign just showed clips about portraying guns in a negative manor when reporting this story. They also gave information on how to turn in your guns and ammo.

Gun haters need not worry. With the next president, not matter who it is, I predict more gun control/tyranny.

[plumberscrack]

The DC Gun Ban has been a joke here for 30 years. In that time the homocide rate from hand guns has increased just about every year.

EVERYONE here has a handgun; drug dealers, homeowners, shop keepers the neighbors nanny, you name it. Each and everyone one of them was purchased illegally.

Give me 30 minutes and $50 bucks and I could find you a gun. Yea it might be the gun that killed a cab driver last week or the one that put a hole in the store owner Mr. Yu. Maybe it will be the gun that fired the bullet that ended up in my truck. I even heard gunfire while eating lunch today. Used to be you would only hear it at night. Now I hear it all the time.

The problem is DC is surrounded several states that have very liberal gun laws. The black market is huge and lucrative. How to fix it? Hell, I don't know but allowing the purchase and transportation of them here won't help. That I'm sure of.

[Frankiarmz]

Very complicated issue. If we were dealing with a society of responsible people who took gun ownership seriously I would feel better with more people having guns legally. Unfortunately too many irresponsible people out there, don't secure their homes or guns. We have a high incidence of domestic disputes and with more guns in the home we can all see what that will lead to. I don't trust most drivers on the road to be alert and sober, so I hate to think of these same folks having guns. The flip side to all this is the fact that the bad guys have the guns and law abiding people do not, so do you level the playing field? I say give it a shot!:D

[garager]

I love MN for another reason, we can carry ours with us, proper permit no problems. Some states are just better than others I would guess. So does this mean we have a better Gov. then you do???? :grinning-moose: :grinning-moose:

[Masterplumb]

The DC Gun Ban has been a joke here for 30 years. In that time the homocide rate from hand guns has increased just about every year.

EVERYONE here has a handgun; drug dealers, homeowners, shop keepers the neighbors nanny, you name it. Each and everyone one of them was purchased illegally.

Give me 30 minutes and $50 bucks and I could find you a gun. Yea it might be the gun that killed a cab driver last week or the one that put a hole in the store owner Mr. Yu. Maybe it will be the gun that fired the bullet that ended up in my truck. I even heard gunfire while eating lunch today. Used to be you would only hear it at night. Now I hear it all the time.

The problem is DC is surrounded several states that have very liberal gun laws. The black market is huge and lucrative. How to fix it? Hell, I don't know but allowing the purchase and transportation of them here won't help. That I'm sure of.

How about right off the bat if you commit a crime while in the possesion of a gun (legal or illegal) you get life in prison.

[Masterplumb]

Very complicated issue. If we were dealing with a society of responsible people who took gun ownership seriously I would feel better with more people having guns legally. Unfortunately too many irresponsible people out there, don't secure their homes or guns. We have a high incidence of domestic disputes and with more guns in the home we can all see what that will lead to. I don't trust most drivers on the road to be alert and sober, so I hate to think of these same folks having guns. The flip side to all this is the fact that the bad guys have the guns and law abiding people do not, so do you level the playing field? I say give it a shot!:D

The majority of us legal gun owners are responsible, that is a fact. The criminals are going to have guns regardless of what the law states, and if they try to take my LEGAL guns away, I too will be an illegal gun owner as well.

[Masterplumb]

I love MN for another reason, we can carry ours with us, proper permit no problems. Some states are just better than others I would guess. So does this mean we have a better Gov. then you do???? :grinning-moose: :grinning-moose:
Yes. Your lawmakers are just less liberal.

[HVAC HAWK]

not 100% sure but in pa you can have a hand gun in a holster like Clint Eastwood with out a permit .but that does not mean they will not stop you and ask a million questions .:eek:

[Masterplumb]

Today is a great day to be an American. We won this all so important second ammendment ruling.

This is going to be George W. Bush's legacy. Say what you want about him, he has made many mistakes during his 7+ years in office. But today sealed his legacy. Had it not been for his appointment of judges Roberts and Alito, 2 centralist conservitives, us gun owners could have had our right to keep and bear arms taken out from under us today.

Take this into consideration as you think about who you will pull the lever for this November, what would have happened today if Al Gore would have won in 2000? Or if Kerry would have won in 2004? We would be looking at a different outcome with the judges they would have appointed.

Its not about the lesser of the 2 evils as I hear people say when they ponder who to vote for. Its an important decision and you should think about who represents your beliefs (or who closer represents them)no matter who it is, as the president's decision CAN impact our way of life.
Today is a good day to be an American.

[NHMaster3015]

I'm happy for the decision but in truth it doesn't mean much. The ruling only covers D.C. which is federal. The ruling, will not have any effect on States rights or for that matter city and local jurisdictions. N.Y. City for example will still be able to make and enforce it's gun laws unless the state supreme courts overrule those decisions. In the mean time I like to follow the advice of G. Gordon Liddy. " Better to be tried by 12 than carried by six"

[plumberscrack]

Amendment II

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.

[Masterplumb]

I'm happy for the decision but in truth it doesn't mean much. The ruling only covers D.C. which is federal. The ruling, will not have any effect on States rights or for that matter city and local jurisdictions. N.Y. City for example will still be able to make and enforce it's gun laws unless the state supreme courts overrule those decisions. In the mean time I like to follow the advice of G. Gordon Liddy. " Better to be tried by 12 than carried by six"

There has not been any federal change to the right to bear arms since the 1700's. This could have opened the door to change. I disagree, it could have impacted us severely. This is coming from someone who has a pistol license just outside NYC's doorstep.

[Killertoiletspider]

Amendment II

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.

See amendment 14.

This means little to the rest of the fifty states, Washington DC is not a state, and therefore is not subject to the 14th amendment.

[Masterplumb]

See amendment 14.

This means little to the rest of the fifty states, Washington DC is not a state, and therefore is not subject to the 14th amendment.

Maybe so but the constitution and the ammendments pertain to all citizens of the United States of America, and to some Supreme Court Justices, terrorist enemy combatants.

[plumberscrack]

See amendment 14.

This means little to the rest of the fifty states, Washington DC is not a state, and therefore is not subject to the 14th amendment.

While we are on the subject of DC and Amendments....

DC pays the second highest Federal tax per capita but does NOT have a representitive in the House or Senate. No say whatsoever on how those tax dollars are spent.

We need another Amendment!

[ToUtahNow]

First off the use of the word state as used in the 2nd Amendment did not mean a literal State. Secondly while this ruling over turned the DC ban the big win was the Court made an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which before this they had always refused to do. Now short of repealing the 2nd Amendment, legal citizens should be able to possess firearms with some restrictions. What really bothers me though was the Judges which dissented did based on their concerns this would over turn gun laws elsewhere. Those Judges should be tossed out on their ears because they are trying to make law which is not their job. Their job is only to interpret and administer current laws.

Mark

[ToUtahNow]

While we are on the subject of DC and Amendments....

DC pays the second highest Federal tax per capita but does NOT have a representitive in the House or Senate. No say whatsoever on how those tax dollars are spent.

We need another Amendment!

Yeah but DC is also the place which elected the Pimp Daddy Mayor Barry. I would be afraid to see who you guys would send to the Congress.

Mark :eek:

[Killertoiletspider]

First off the use of the word state as used in the 2nd Amendment did not mean a literal State. Secondly while this ruling over turned the DC ban the big win was the Court made an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which before this they had always refused to do. Now short of repealing the 2nd Amendment, legal citizens should be able to possess firearms with some restrictions. What really bothers me though was the Judges which dissented did based on their concerns this would over turn gun laws elsewhere. Those Judges should be tossed out on their ears because they are trying to make law which is not their job. Their job is only to interpret and administer current laws.

Mark

The fact that the Supreme court agreed to restrictions tells me that this decision is going to get challenged almost immediately, look for Illinois to be the first state to challenge this.

[ToUtahNow]

The fact that the Supreme court agreed to restrictions tells me that this decision is going to get challenged almost immediately, look for Illinois to be the first state to challenge this.

I guess we will have to see as it took the Court almost 70-years to take a second look at the Amendment this time.

Mark

[plumberscrack]

Yeah but DC is also the place which elected the Pimp Daddy Mayor Barry. I would be afraid to see who you guys would send to the Congress.

Mark :eek:

We might send him :eek:

He STILL holds a Councilman seat in Ward 8 with 95% of the vote! :banghead:

No wonder this city is such a pisspot

"That b*tch set me up"

:speechless:

[MrsSeatDown]

Yeah but DC is also the place which elected the Pimp Daddy Mayor Barry. I would be afraid to see who you guys would send to the Congress.

Mark :eek:

:nyaa-nyaa4:Mark just used "pimp daddy" in a sentence:killingme:

This new law will only continue to keep the honest people honest.

[ToUtahNow]

:nyaa-nyaa4:Mark just used "pimp daddy" in a sentence:killingme:

I'm confused, if you don't use it in a sentence where would you use it?

Mark :confused:

[MrsSeatDown]

I'm confused, if you don't use it in a sentence where would you use it?

Mark :confused:

Whatever!:wave:

[ToUtahNow]

Whatever!:wave:


LOL-That's too funny as that was the exact response I expected.

Mark:D

[plumberscrack]

I'm confused, if you don't use it in a sentence where would you use it?

Mark :confused:



3588

[DuckButter]

I know of no other forum that can derail a topic so drastically...this one was derailed by the O/P!

Pimp Daddy...sheesh!

[ToUtahNow]

I know of no other forum that can derail a topic so drastically...this one was derailed by the O/P!

Pimp Daddy...sheesh!

Why whatever are you talking about?

Mark

[Tyman]

It's not derailed until they get talking about the round up, again.

Before the round up it was sectional vs drum.

[Rafael]

Today is a great day to be an American. We won this all so important second ammendment ruling.

This is going to be George W. Bush's legacy. Say what you want about him, he has made many mistakes during his 7+ years in office. But today sealed his legacy. Had it not been for his appointment of judges Roberts and Alito, 2 centralist conservitives, us gun owners could have had our right to keep and bear arms taken out from under us today.

Take this into consideration as you think about who you will pull the lever for this November, what would have happened today if Al Gore would have won in 2000? Or if Kerry would have won in 2004? We would be looking at a different outcome with the judges they would have appointed.

Its not about the lesser of the 2 evils as I hear people say when they ponder who to vote for. Its an important decision and you should think about who represents your beliefs (or who closer represents them)no matter who it is, as the president's decision CAN impact our way of life.
Today is a good day to be an American.

I cant agree with you more. Who do you think is more likely to appoint a gun grabbing judge: mccain or obama? Vote accordingly, the most important thing the pres does is choose supreme court judges.

[PLUMBER RICK]

It's not derailed until they get talking about the round up, again.

Before the round up it was sectional vs drum.

this debate will never stop.

but i can tell you i get lots of p.m's for sectional questions.

the roundup will get re-energized as soon as the full length dvd and photos come out.

then it will time to promote next years roundup.

go team geritol:nyaa-nyaa4:

rick.

[Service Guy]

Today is a great day to be an American. We won this all so important second ammendment ruling.

This is going to be George W. Bush's legacy. Say what you want about him, he has made many mistakes during his 7+ years in office. But today sealed his legacy. Had it not been for his appointment of judges Roberts and Alito, 2 centralist conservitives, us gun owners could have had our right to keep and bear arms taken out from under us today.

Take this into consideration as you think about who you will pull the lever for this November, what would have happened today if Al Gore would have won in 2000? Or if Kerry would have won in 2004? We would be looking at a different outcome with the judges they would have appointed.

Its not about the lesser of the 2 evils as I hear people say when they ponder who to vote for. Its an important decision and you should think about who represents your beliefs (or who closer represents them)no matter who it is, as the president's decision CAN impact our way of life.
Today is a good day to be an American.

We don't always see eye to eye, but this is a really good post.:thumbup2:

[saysflushable]

First off the use of the word state as used in the 2nd Amendment did not mean a literal State. Secondly while this ruling over turned the DC ban the big win was the Court made an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which before this they had always refused to do. Now short of repealing the 2nd Amendment, legal citizens should be able to possess firearms with some restrictions. What really bothers me though was the Judges which dissented did based on their concerns this would over turn gun laws elsewhere. Those Judges should be tossed out on their ears because they are trying to make law which is not their job. Their job is only to interpret and administer current laws.

Mark

I Agree the ruling on the 2nd amendment is whats important. For me it was a great ruling. I guess time will tell.

[woodenstickers]

Today is a great day to be an American. We won this all so important second ammendment ruling.

This is going to be George W. Bush's legacy. Say what you want about him, he has made many mistakes during his 7+ years in office. But today sealed his legacy. Had it not been for his appointment of judges Roberts and Alito, 2 centralist conservitives, us gun owners could have had our right to keep and bear arms taken out from under us today.

Take this into consideration as you think about who you will pull the lever for this November, what would have happened today if Al Gore would have won in 2000? Or if Kerry would have won in 2004? We would be looking at a different outcome with the judges they would have appointed.

Its not about the lesser of the 2 evils as I hear people say when they ponder who to vote for. Its an important decision and you should think about who represents your beliefs (or who closer represents them)no matter who it is, as the president's decision CAN impact our way of life.
Today is a good day to be an American.

Wow. Just wow. Of all the things that have happened to impact the world in the last 7.5 years, you really think this is the most important. I'm stunned. Even defending Bush, his impact on malaria is less of a legacy than the fact that this decision barely passed muster in the one non-state in the country?

Okay.



Eli

[BHD]

How about right off the bat if you commit a crime while in the possession of a gun (legal or illegal) you get life in prison.


WHO gets to decide what a CRIME is?

protecting your self in your own home? Protecting your property and life? What happened if you have some accident and fire it in city limits, some how and the "LAW" says no discharge in city limits. shooing some attacking wild animals?

which "CRIMES" there are laws on the books you probly do not even know about, which may or possibly with that type of blanket ruling would land you Life for jay walking. If you had a gun with you at the time.

[Rafael]

WHO gets to decide what a CRIME is?

protecting your self in your own home? Protecting your property and life? What happened if you have some accident and fire it in city limits, some how and the "LAW" says no discharge in city limits. shooing some attacking wild animals?

which "CRIMES" there are laws on the books you probly do not even know about, which may or possibly with that type of blanket ruling would land you Life for jay walking. If you had a gun with you at the time.

The DA decides what a crime is. He then decides whether to prosecute, at that point a judge/jury decides if it is a crime. Depending on where you live, self defense by any means is considered a crime, Just ask all those folks in NYC who have been prosecuted for defending themselves when being robbed or assaulted.

[BHD]

There has not been any federal change to the right to bear arms since the 1700's. .

there has been many changes to Federal firearm laws, WHAT DO you mean by this statement?

[BHD]

The DA decides what a crime is. He then decides whether to prosecute, at that point a judge/jury decides if it is a crime. Depending on where you live, self defense by any means is considered a crime, Just ask all those folks in NYC who have been prosecuted for defending themselves when being robbed or assaulted.

this is exactly what I Mean, any use of a firearm in some locations is illegal, you my be able to own one legally but to use it even in defence of your own or family lives is not legal.

BE VERY CAREFUL OF BLANKET LAWS,

[Rafael]

BHD,
Defending yourself in many places is illegal even without a gun.

[Frankiarmz]

this is exactly what I Mean, any use of a firearm in some locations is illegal, you my be able to own one legally but to use it even in defence of your own or family lives is not legal.

BE VERY CAREFUL OF BLANKET LAWS,

Very good exchange. My neighbor who is a retired police officer said even in self defense with a legal firearm you would be in for years of litigation and misery. The flip side of that truth was stated much earlier in this thread "Better to be tried by twelve than carried(buried) by six. Criminals work the legal system to no end with defense attorneys who use any and all loopholes, drag trials out for years and plea bargain. Why is there such resistance to law abiding people defending themselves? Who loses when a person defends him or her self against a criminal? We need to recognize the seriousness of discharging a gun when even trained professionals encounter all sorts of problems when face with a gun battle. I keep watching these "World"s Craziest Videos" where a shop owner will get into a gun battle with a criminal and neither are looking where they are firing their guns. Very complicated issue even if there were no local laws involved.

[Rafael]

The reason is that politicians do not want people taking care of themselves, it is part of the welfare state mentality. If you defend yourself then pols think you are one of those self sufficient people who dont need govt handouts and are probably against welfare and more bureacracy. Look at England, people go to jail for defending themselves there regularly, that is a far more socialist country than ours.

[Masterplumb]

Wow. Just wow. Of all the things that have happened to impact the world in the last 7.5 years, you really think this is the most important. I'm stunned. Even defending Bush, his impact on malaria is less of a legacy than the fact that this decision barely passed muster in the one non-state in the country?

Okay.



Eli

The reason it passed is because of the 2 judges he nominated to the bench. Had he selected a more liberal justice, the people of D.C. would not be allowed to possess a gun, which just happens to be a constitutional right. The reason for it's importance is due to the fact that one by one the liberal politicians and judges are trying to take our god given rights away, one by one.

[Masterplumb]

WHO gets to decide what a CRIME is?

protecting your self in your own home? Protecting your property and life? What happened if you have some accident and fire it in city limits, some how and the "LAW" says no discharge in city limits. shooing some attacking wild animals?

which "CRIMES" there are laws on the books you probly do not even know about, which may or possibly with that type of blanket ruling would land you Life for jay walking. If you had a gun with you at the time.

How about you use common sense, like if you decide to rob a bank with a gun, or if you rob someone at gunpoint, or maybe if you kidnap someone with a gun, carjack someone, etc etc etc. If someone breaks into your home you have the RIGHT to defend yourself. You are trying to make a mockery out of my statement. There is such a thing as common sense....try using it.

[Masterplumb]

there has been many changes to Federal firearm laws, WHAT DO you mean by this statement?


Where and when has the CONSTITUTIONAL right to keep and bear arms been changed.


Ill be waiting for your answer:way-to-go:

[Masterplumb]

Very good exchange. My neighbor who is a retired police officer said even in self defense with a legal firearm you would be in for years of litigation and misery. The flip side of that truth was stated much earlier in this thread "Better to be tried by twelve than carried(buried) by six. Criminals work the legal system to no end with defense attorneys who use any and all loopholes, drag trials out for years and plea bargain. Why is there such resistance to law abiding people defending themselves? Who loses when a person defends him or her self against a criminal? We need to recognize the seriousness of discharging a gun when even trained professionals encounter all sorts of problems when face with a gun battle. I keep watching these "World"s Craziest Videos" where a shop owner will get into a gun battle with a criminal and neither are looking where they are firing their guns. Very complicated issue even if there were no local laws involved.

They say, when someone breaks into your home you should shoot to kill, not to injure because the litigation will drag on and on. "Kill them dead" they say.

[JimDon]

Don't get pulled into the Dems Vs. Reps argument of who wants to take your (our) guns away. If truth be known, both would like to take our guns away --much easier to control the population if the guns are removed. All you have to do is look at European countries pre-WWII. Reps learned LONG ago, that a way to get elected and gain popularity is to appear pro-gun. Dems are now learning that trick as many have already come out praising this new court decision. Both parties are smart enough to know that most of the gun vs. gun control argument is a bunch of B--- S--- because of the criminal element involved. Guns crimes are, in 99% of the cases, not caused by legal guns owned by law-abiding citizens. They are caused by criminals who do not obey the law. Gun laws (concealed carry, possession of weapons, selling of illegal weapons, ownership of banned weapons, and most importantly using a gun to commit a crime) mean absolutely NOTHING to a criminal -- why, you ask? Because he is a CRIMINAL. He has no regard for the law, no matter what it is. So gun crimes are not going to be removed from the face of this green earth with the passage of a whole encyclopedia of gun laws. Politicians, both R. and D. are dumber than a box of rocks, but they are smart enough to know this and continue to use these gun control arguments (pro gun control or anti gun control) to make their points with their constituents and get elected cause of the "feel good" hype that it spreads. We, as gun owners and citizens, are not too bright, because we make rash judgements and voting decisions based on this cockamamie BS argument about oh, this guy or that guy is going to take your gun away. Nonsense. Brighten up and stop buying into the politicians' BS. If they ever ever ever dare to try to take guns away in this country, there would be revolution that would make 1776 look like paradise. There are way too many guns, there are way to many people with guns, and there are way too many people who know how to make their own guns, for the pols in this great US of A to ever start going door to door to pick them up. Not unless you want to see a whole lot of melee going on.
Jim Don

[ToUtahNow]

Where and when has the CONSTITUTIONAL right to keep and bear arms been changed.


Ill be waiting for your answer:way-to-go:

U.S. v. Miller in 1939

[Masterplumb]

Jim, believe me I know what politicians are all about. Most of them change positions like the weather. But if you truly do your research, you can tell who the real gun guys are or aren't.

[JimDon]

MP,
Sure, to a degree, there are exceptions to EVERY rule. But my view:

Do you know what six dead politicians on the bottom of Lake Michigan is?



A GOOD START.



Cheers,

Jim Don

[Masterplumb]

U.S. v. Miller in 1939


Where is the changes to the constitutional right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

[ToUtahNow]

Where is the changes to the constitutional right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

It supports the idea that certain restrictions can be place on the type of firearms available to citizens. This is basically why the States and local government are able to limit firearm ownership. The problem DC had is they banned firearms altogether. Because of US v. Miller, States like California get to restrict gun ownership to a point where it has become ridiculous.

Mark

[BHD]

How about you use common sense, like if you decide to rob a bank with a gun, or if you rob someone at gunpoint, or maybe if you kidnap someone with a gun, carjack someone, etc etc etc. If someone breaks into your home you have the RIGHT to defend yourself. You are trying to make a mockery out of my statement. There is such a thing as common sense....try using it.


I agree common sense should be used, but it is not by the courts or by the government or many in power,

but by your statement one could get life in prision, by jay walking if you pass a blanket law as you stated,

and as pointed out defending your self is not legal in many instances, (right or wrong it or they are LAWS) so to pass another law to do life if some one breaks a law when in possession of a fire arm is a very dangerous thing, all I am saying you better use common sense of the system that is in place not what one wishes it was,


~~~~~~~~~~~

you said changed to FEDERAL FIREARM LAWS, not changes to the Constitution,

As one should have figured out by now what FEDERAL LAWS are, and the CONSTITUTION is are two different things in reality, now weather they should be or not that is an entirely different argument. There are many many laws that exist that are not even part of the Constitution or have any resemblance to what the founding fathers had in mind. and the FEDS have taken on powers that were never granted them under the Constitution

[BHD]

Where is the changes to the constitutional right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller


go and buy a new one to day?

you can't you can only buy one that is on the books all ready.

apply for a manufacturing licence and try to make one.

A nuclear power plant can not even new ones for there security forces,

Black Water got raided here in the past few days and they took the sheriffs offices class III weapons that were stored on the property,

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/atf-raids-black.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25394941/

[Masterplumb]

It supports the idea that certain restrictions can be place on the type of firearms available to citizens. This is basically why the States and local government are able to limit firearm ownership. The problem DC had is they banned firearms altogether. Because of US v. Miller, States like California get to restrict gun ownership to a point where it has become ridiculous.

Mark

Look I am pro gun, but there is also no reason for a citizen to be in possesion of an uzi or any other fully automatic gun. Like I said, common sense must be used as well.

[Masterplumb]

I agree common sense should be used, but it is not by the courts or by the government or many in power,

but by your statement one could get life in prision, by jay walking if you pass a blanket law as you stated,

and as pointed out defending your self is not legal in many instances, (right or wrong it or they are LAWS) so to pass another law to do life if some one breaks a law when in possession of a fire arm is a very dangerous thing, all I am saying you better use common sense of the system that is in place not what one wishes it was,


~~~~~~~~~~~

you said changed to FEDERAL FIREARM LAWS, not changes to the Constitution,

As one should have figured out by now what FEDERAL LAWS are, and the CONSTITUTION is are two different things in reality, now weather they should be or not that is an entirely different argument. There are many many laws that exist that are not even part of the Constitution or have any resemblance to what the founding fathers had in mind. and the FEDS have taken on powers that were never granted them under the Constitution

I guess I took it that most of us were reasonable people, so I guess that is my mistake but I never meantto insinuate that jay walking while possesing a gun would be reason for life in jail. I figured common sense would be applied.

[Masterplumb]

go and buy a new one to day?

you can't you can only buy one that is on the books all ready.

apply for a manufacturing licence and try to make one.

A nuclear power plant can not even new ones for there security forces,

Black Water got raided here in the past few days and they took the sheriffs offices class III weapons that were stored on the property,

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/atf-raids-black.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25394941/

I just put a new smith and wesson SW99 40 caliber on my permit 4 months ago. Transaction went smooth, no glitches.

[garager]

Common sense???? California and 3 strikes and your out, a guy is hungry, steals a pizza and gets sent to jail for life, his 3rd strike. Now the state residents pay for this guy pizza. My god, the man was hungry, wheres common sense with that????

My point is, if the law wants to make an example out of you they can.....

[ToUtahNow]

Common sense???? California and 3 strikes and your out, a guy is hungry, steals a pizza and gets sent to jail for life, his 3rd strike. Now the state residents pay for this guy pizza. My god, the man was hungry, wheres common sense with that????

My point is, if the law wants to make an example out of you they can.....

I believe it is 3-violent felonies so unless he used a weapon to steal the pizza it would not count. If he uses a weapon it doesn't matter whether it was a pizza or a million dollars he is threatening a life.

Mark

[garager]

Repeated offenders multiple felony's 1994. This has nothing to do with violent nature crimes, one guy had 3 past burglary gets caught with a very small amount of coke and is sentenced to life.

Now it has been changed to go after the more serious offenders, but the way the law was written up back in 1994, the Judges had to go by the law and nail all of them. Now, the guys with these lessor crimes can appeal to get released, and I'll bet cha I know why, the dang jails are over flowing with criminals and our states cannot afford all these criminals....

Put em on an Island and say good bye, shark bait someday.... :D

[DuckButter]

BHD,
Defending yourself in many places is illegal even without a gun.
It's now illegal to yell at, or flip someone the bird in traffic in my state, not kidding...it's a crime.
Raise your voice at your kids...a crime, domestic abuse.
Smoking in public, a crime in many towns here now.

My queue to leave is when they decide eating red meat is a crime...thats when I'm off to Canada.

[ToUtahNow]

It's now illegal to yell at, or flip someone the bird in traffic in my state, not kidding...it's a crime.
Raise your voice at your kids...a crime, domestic abuse.
Smoking in public, a crime in many towns here now.

My queue to leave is when they decide eating red meat is a crime...thats when I'm off to Canada.

Are you sure they would want another red meat eating American?

Mark

[Masterplumb]

It's now illegal to yell at, or flip someone the bird in traffic in my state, not kidding...it's a crime.
Raise your voice at your kids...a crime, domestic abuse.
Smoking in public, a crime in many towns here now.

My queue to leave is when they decide eating red meat is a crime...thats when I'm off to Canada.\

Let me know when you are going. I will call my friend Tinmack. He is not only my friend....he is also my Avatar:shocked2:

[woodenstickers]

The reason it passed is because of the 2 judges he nominated to the bench. Had he selected a more liberal justice, the people of D.C. would not be allowed to possess a gun, which just happens to be a constitutional right. The reason for it's importance is due to the fact that one by one the liberal politicians and judges are trying to take our god given rights away, one by one.

I get that, but I don't get the statement that it is Bush's legacy. As a matter of fact, there is no way it is his legacy. I guess you are forgetting about habeas corpus, the war in Iraq, the complete Katrina debacle, Bin Laden still at large, the largest growth of government INCLUDING entitlement programs and pork, one of the worst approval ratings in history, "mission accomplished" $5.00 gas, secret prisons, and like I said before, malaria...etc...

Kind of a stretch there, buddy-boy.


Eli

[Killertoiletspider]

The Miller case in 1939 wasn't really a ruling on the 2nd amendment, rather an opinion that a sawed off shotgun has no basis in military applications, and therefore can be banned.


That being said, I fear a government that is afraid of it's citizen's, and taking away my gun is an outright admission of fear.

[SlimTim]

I get that, but I don't get the statement that it is Bush's legacy. As a matter of fact, there is no way it is his legacy. I guess you are forgetting about habeas corpus, the war in Iraq, the complete Katrina debacle, Bin Laden still at large, the largest growth of government INCLUDING entitlement programs and pork, one of the worst approval ratings in history, "mission accomplished" $5.00 gas, secret prisons, and like I said before, malaria...etc...

Kind of a stretch there, buddy-boy.


Eli

Habeas corpus for enemy combatants? Doesn't apply. The war in Iraq? Millions liberated from one of the most tyranical regimes. Katrina debacle? I wouldn't lay that at Bush's feet first. Bin Landen still at large? Let's deal with the Muslims that have a gun in our face now. He'll find his 70 virgins/raisins soon enough. "Mission accomplished", perhaps bad timing but we had toppled the regime at that point. $5.00 gas? More the dems and enviros fault. Secret prisons? way to go. I hope they got some info that saved alot of people. Malaria? Could you clarify that,please.

Now if you want to complain about his stance on our porous borders, lack of support for our border guards, failure to rein in the IRS, signed nearly every pork project that the congress sent him and failure to clean house at the state dept, then I'm with you there.

[ToUtahNow]

The Miller case in 1939 wasn't really a ruling on the 2nd amendment, rather an opinion that a sawed off shotgun has no basis in military applications, and therefore can be banned.


That being said, I fear a government that is afraid of it's citizen's, and taking away my gun is an outright admission of fear.

Actually it held up the Constitutionality that certain guns could be banned as the Miller defence was really out to over throw the NFA which had been made law a few years earlier. Miller was trying to say the NFA was in conflict with the 2nd Amendment and the courts said the 2nd Amendment did not give unregulated rights to own firearms. Some courts took Miller to the extreme and said the Court said the 2nd Amendment did not give regular citizens the right to bear arms based on the Miller ruling.

Mark

[woodenstickers]

Habeas corpus for enemy combatants? Doesn't apply.

You can be declared eligible for this at any time under the law now. Yes you. At any time. Maybe you should look into the power it really granted. It's obvious you blindly trust the government, but the 2nd amendment was put in place with the warning that you shouldn't.

The war in Iraq? Millions liberated from one of the most tyranical regimes.

Horribly planned. Not the reason we went into it. Much more murderous regimes STILL IN POWER RIGHT NOW. How many billions, going on trillions did it cost? Took resources from the actual war on the people who attacked our country. More civilians killed since the liberation than under Saddam. The "liberated" want us out. Into debt to China for generations now because of this crap and you think it is good for America? We are much more vulnerable now than we ever were. It was completely inept and hurt us very badly.


Katrina debacle? I wouldn't lay that at Bush's feet first.

Second, third, fourth...he gets some of it. FEMA. First letter in that is federal. Still hasn't explained his appointment there, has he? Heckufa job Brownie? Bull.

Bin Landen still at large? Let's deal with the Muslims that have a gun in our face now. He'll find his 70 virgins/raisins soon enough.

Are you saying let him die of old age? You have to be a pretty hard core Bush apologist to think this is a solution.


"Mission accomplished", perhaps bad timing but we had toppled the regime at that point.

To say the least. Worst violence and most civilian and AMERICAN deaths to come after. Keep apologizing.


$5.00 gas? More the dems and enviros fault.

A few weeks ago he was shocked that there was going to be $4.00 gas. He is the president. His cabinet has a conflict of interest with the oil companies and his family has a conflict of interest with the Saudis. As long as there is an "R" by his name it's all good though right? So lets go drill. Lets make it so you can walk from alaska to So CAl on the oil dereks without getting your feet wet. Than what happens in 100 years? Who cares, we'll just borrow the time as well as the money from our future generations. Real conservative ideal there.


Secret prisons? way to go. I hope they got some info that saved alot of people.

Bin Laden got a lot in common with that stance. You shouldn't be on threads talking about what is "American" if you think that this kind of crap is.

Malaria? Could you clarify that,please.

Pretty funny. The only thing on the list that should have you defending Bush and you have no clue. If it's not about shooting someone, or blowing up a far off country, or blaming a bleeding heart lib, or trusting the government to decide who should and shouldn't be tortured--as long as you don't know them, well it ain't worth knowing. Look it up. Google is your friend.


Now if you want to complain about his stance on our porous borders, lack of support for our border guards, failure to rein in the IRS, signed nearly every pork project that the congress sent him and failure to clean house at the state dept, then I'm with you there.

If you could actually answer any of the claims I made about him with more than "the libs did it, I wouldn't blame him, good for our team if it helps us win" and a bunch of other weak, uninformed talking points I'd feel a lot better about you being with me on it.

Don't believe everything you hear. You have some research to do.

[Masterplumb]

I get that, but I don't get the statement that it is Bush's legacy. As a matter of fact, there is no way it is his legacy. I guess you are forgetting about habeas corpus, the war in Iraq, the complete Katrina debacle, Bin Laden still at large, the largest growth of government INCLUDING entitlement programs and pork, one of the worst approval ratings in history, "mission accomplished" $5.00 gas, secret prisons, and like I said before, malaria...etc...

Kind of a stretch there, buddy-boy.


Eli

Its right in your face and you cant see it. Like I said it is Bush's legacy, you're just looking at it from the other side of the fence pal-o-mine.

[BHD]

I just put a new smith and wesson SW99 40 caliber on my permit 4 months ago. Transaction went smooth, no glitches.

that was not a Class III firearm was it,(as the discussion in that question was about), try to get the paper work for converting a AK or AR, or any other rattle gun type,

[Rafael]

Habeas corpus was repealed by Abe Lincoln for the duration of the civil war. Abe Lincoln also had the entire Maryland Legislature arrested without charging them for any crime because he didn't want them to vote on secession. Most people dont know this but the pres. can do pretty much anything he wants to, not necessarily legally, but they can do it. It is up to congress to impeach a pres if they feel his actions warrant it and if the action is politically popular. Bush is a lightweight next to Lincoln. The libs scream their little heads off over this habeas corpus nonsense, not a single US citizen has been a victim of this.
Personally, I think Bush is a fool for not having every one of those scumsuckers in guantanamo executed. He can do it legally. They are enemy combatants who were captured out of uniform, under the Geneva convention that makes them spies, spies can be executed without trial.

[woodenstickers]

Habeas corpus was repealed by Abe Lincoln for the duration of the civil war. Abe Lincoln also had the entire Maryland Legislature arrested without charging them for any crime because he didn't want them to vote on secession. Most people dont know this but the pres. can do pretty much anything he wants to, not necessarily legally, but they can do it. It is up to congress to impeach a pres if they feel his actions warrant it and if the action is politically popular. Bush is a lightweight next to Lincoln. The libs scream their little heads off over this habeas corpus nonsense, not a single US citizen has been a victim of this.
Personally, I think Bush is a fool for not having every one of those scumsuckers in guantanamo executed. He can do it legally. They are enemy combatants who were captured out of uniform, under the Geneva convention that makes them spies, spies can be executed without trial.

Go back and read the thread. The statement was that this decision would seal Bush's legacy. I'm pointing out the numerous things that have been far more reaching and have had far more impact on this country and abroad. It has been more than just libs screaming about Bush and his time in office. But if it helps you to draw sides instead of look at what has actually gone on, go to it. It is so tiresome. You can still hate libs AND see what Bush has done to this country without getting your reactionary card pulled you know.

If the president being able to do whatever he wants is a defense, I guess you wouldn't care if the next one infringes on the 2nd amendment then? What if it was just that it COULD be suspended, but hadn't been yet? No, I think you would care, although maybe only if it was a Dem who did it. You can't have it both ways outside of your head, only inside.

As far as executing all the prisoners in GitMo, you better hope whoever is in power next doesn't think you are a scum sucker. In one thread we are talking about the 2nd amendment that was written to keep the government from turning tyrannical, then the same folks who claim their glock will protect them from our military want to give the same government the right to detain, torture and kill anyone they see fit by applying vague terms to them?

If you want this country to maintain it's higher standard then you have to live by it too, even if it isn't you who is getting hurt. If you can't see that then you are just like the "scum suckers". I have no respect for the glass parking lot crowd. I just hope you never are in a position to actually make a call on who should and shouldn't be executed.



Eli

[woodenstickers]

Its right in your face and you cant see it. Like I said it is Bush's legacy, you're just looking at it from the other side of the fence pal-o-mine.

Vast majority of the country, most of the world, and history will disagree. But hey, if all he had to do to keep you happy while he rode this country down into the dirt like all the other projects he ever headed was let you keep you bang-bang--four more years!:rolleyes:


Eli

[Rafael]

The scum suckers in Gitmo are spies by definition of the Geneva convention. They should be treated as such.
My criticism is that Bush is a fool who is playing court games with the scum at Gitmo when he doesn't need to, and he is taking unwarranted criticism because of it. US and International law is very clear on nonuniformed enemy combatants, they can be detained indefinitely or executed summarily as spies, there is no gray area here.

My comment on the pres being able to do anything he wants was not a defense, it is a statement of reality that many in the US do not understand or believe. From Lincoln arresting an entire legislature that committed no crime, to FDR arresting and imprisoning US born citizens of japanese ancestry, to a standing president who remained in office after being cited for obstruction of justice, it happens often and will not stop until we get a congress with some balls, if that ever happens.

[Masterplumb]

Vast majority of the country, most of the world, and history will disagree. But hey, if all he had to do to keep you happy while he rode this country down into the dirt like all the other projects he ever headed was let you keep you bang-bang--four more years!:rolleyes:


Eli

That why I like you Eli!:speechless: