NationStates Jolt Archive

The questions:

1. Is the requirement for a license to own a handgun but no licenses being issued considered an infringement?

2. Is the requirement for a carry permit (which is also not issued) to even move a registered handgun withing your own domicile considered an infringement?

3. Is the requirement for all long arms to be in an inoperable condition while in your own domicile considered an infringement?


It's rumored that Scalia will be writing the majority opinion. The Brady Campaign (http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2008/06/yeah-they-know-it.html) and Ceasefire NJ (http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2008/06/reasonably-desperate.html)have effectively thrown in the towel on the debate over "collective vs individual" meaning of the 2A and are hedging all their bets on a vague "reasonable restriction" wording. The NRA is remaining tight lipped as to their expectations.

For those who are interested, SCOTUSBlog (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/) will be live-feeding the decision.

Relevant filings (http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/).

We can only hope that they rule in favor of the individual right to own, use, and transport fireamrs.

We can only hope that they rule in favor of the individual right to own, use, and transport fireamrs.

They will.

I agree with Commissar Goofballs. The oral arguments demonstrate at least 5 justices for an individual rights ruling. 2 seem to be for Collective rights, and two seem to be in the middle/unknown. The only real question to be answered is how far the ruling will go.

They will.

They better.

I feel like they don't really have a choice.
While it might make SCOTUS feel good to say "Boo guns, take them all away", in practice it would be kinda difficult to make people give up their firearms.
Regardless of how they interperet the constitution, the individual right to own a gun is so ingrained in the American people that George Washington might as well have belonged to the NRA.

We can only hope that they rule in favor of the individual right to own, use, and transport fireamrs.

thats the ruling.
the specifics are in question.
it is very possible that I may soon be able to purchase and M1 Abrams tank, and an F-22 raptor.

thats the ruling.
the specifics are in question.
it is very possible that I may soon be able to purchase and M1 Abrams tank, and an F-22 raptor.

Good luck affording one :p

How Thomas is going to rule is always blatantly clear (like that 8-1 decision the other day on something, I knew the one was Thomas before I even got to his name). Scalia and Roberts are obviously going to support this.

Go Heller, Boo D.C.

:D

Uhu. In a country where almost every other area can own handguns, how could this law even be remotely enforceable? Check every car entering the state? Nah.

As much as I'm against firearms in public hands, I'm also against unenforceable laws.

Regardless of how they interperet the constitution, the individual right to own a gun is so ingrained in the American people that George Washington might as well have belonged to the NRA.

There wouldn't be a Constitution to begin with if that weren't the case. ;)

1. Is the requirement for a license to own a handgun but no licenses being issued considered an infringement?

Yes.

2. Is the requirement for a carry permit (which is also not issued) to even move a registered handgun withing your own domicile considered an infringement?


Very much Yes.

3. Is the requirement for all long arms to be in an inoperable condition while in your own domicile considered an infringement?


Abso-F*&^ing-lutely Yes.

With the 2nd Amendment being what it is, and the reasonable expectations of privacy against government intervention existing as they are, the second two are a given.

As for the first, while I can accept that there exist places where guns should be locked up and kept out of reach for use by any but sworn peace officers (courthouses, federal parks), in other matters law abiding members of the public have the right to carry guns. While I am for registry of guns and requirements for permits on all purchased firearms, once said laws are in place governments can not and should not foster an atmosphere or de facto policy of absolute restriction for the issuing of these required permits.

The D.C. area can and should require that guns be registered and permits issued to lawfully carry firearms. However, they are equally bound to issue these carry permits once a citizen that is indicated to not become a public menace makes a request for one.

Good luck affording one :p

I am nephew to the sultan of Brunei I have been promised those things as gifts as soon as it is legal for me to own them.

I am nephew to the sultan of Brunei I have been promised those things as gifts as soon as it is legal for me to own them.

Would it be too much to ask for an armored division?

Good luck affording one :p

Good luck affording the gas....

FYI, I heard theres something about Open Carry on ABC Nightline at 11:35 ET. Just a heads up.

Would it be too much to ask for an armored division?

thats for my 18th birthday.
My 21st I get the Air support wing.

thats for my 18th birthday.
My 21st I get the Air support wing.

Ooooh, when do you get the Carrier Task Force?

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the Washington D.C. ban on handguns.

It has now official. The DC Handgun Ban has finally been overturned.

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=AjlifXhXC4oZtkEzZXcw4uxMEP0E

Supreme Court strikes down D.C. handgun ban

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

Sounds like Neo Art gets to be wrong. SCOTUS says that the Second Amendment is about the individual right to keep and bear arms.

I can see the panic spreading now amongst those who want to ban guns...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=559573

beat ya to it :D

people live in DC?!

also bloody USians with your constitution worship stopping our moderately evil British plans for world domination :mad:

people live in DC?!

There are only a few people who actually "live" in DC. A little over 200,000 people in the actual city.

On the other hand, millions live in the suburbs in Maryland and Virginia, areas which do not fall under the DC Government jurisdiction.

people live in DC?!
Yep. The chocolate city with the marshmallow centre, if I recall correctly.

So long as this isn't binding on the UK, I don't really mind. You guys do whatever floats your boat, I reckon.

Yep. The chocolate city with the marshmallow centre, if I recall correctly.

So long as this isn't binding on the UK, I don't really mind. You guys do whatever floats your boat, I reckon.

It's not like you're going to come back and burn down the White House again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=AjlifXhXC4oZtkEzZXcw4uxMEP0E



Sounds like Neo Art gets to be wrong. SCOTUS says that the Second Amendment is about the individual right to keep and bear arms.

I can see the panic spreading now amongst those who want to ban guns...

I thought you said we shouldn't quote the AP anymore because they were going to charge us a bazillion dollars and shut down Jolt.

Great, an article, now what was the actual opinion put forward?

Yep. The chocolate city with the marshmallow centre, if I recall correctly.

So long as this isn't binding on the UK, I don't really mind. You guys do whatever floats your boat, I reckon.

actually read the majority opinion the Supreme Court has ruled it is binding on the UK and the common wealth as a whole. we will be sending our troops over to adjust your laws shortly.

It's not like you're going to come back and burn down the White House again.
Nah, the 1812 Infantile Tantrum is long since over.

actually read the majority opinion the Supreme Court has ruled it is binding on the UK and the common wealth as a whole. we will be sending our troops over to adjust your laws shortly.
Time for a good old pitchforks and torches revolution!

*Obtains pitchfork, in lieu of gun*

Great, an article, now what was the actual opinion put forward?

That the Hand gun ban violated the 2nd amendment.

That's the problem with the US Constitution, it's 'enshrined' as though it's holier than thou.

If it's not in the constitution it's not all that should be, in that respect it's similar to the bible.

It's not about whether the issue is correct, it's about what the constitution means.

There are only a few people who actually "live" in DC. A little over 200,000 people in the actual city.

I thought it was like a badlands what with all the theft and murder?

Yep. The chocolate city with the marshmallow centre, if I recall correctly.

I hope they don't toast it

That the Hand gun ban violated the 2nd amendment.

No, you fail. Try again.

Time for a good old pitchforks and torches revolution!

*Obtains pitchfork, in lieu of gun*

pitch forks and torches Versus guns ???

you Brits might not be very smart but I will give it to you , you sure got a big set of balls.

It's not like you're going to come back and burn down the White House again.

No need, you will probably do it for yourselves now.

pitch forks and torches Versus guns ???

you Brits might not be very smart but I will give it to you , you sure got a big set of balls.
Centuries of having cricket balls to the goolies means that us Brits have somewhat, exaggerated features. ;)

No, you fail. Try again.

High court strikes down gun ban

Headline on CNN

Supreme Court Rules for Gun Owners in Historic 2nd Amendment Case

Headline from Fox News

Supreme Court Shoots Down D.C. Gun Ban

From CBS News

You fail.

Centuries of having cricket balls to the goolies means that us Brits have somewhat, exaggerated features. ;)

and a few cricket balls to your head I take it?

Does anyone with a complete thought process know what the majority's opinion was?

and a few cricket balls to your head I take it?

he's from Sheffield...

No, you fail. Try again.

Lies and slander. The ruling is that the Constitution GUARANTEES an individual right to own a gun, thereby meaning that the DC Gun ban violates the constitution, the caveat being that "reasonable restrictions" are still legal, and that it needs to be determined what restrictions are reazsonable. California and New York are next in line for a high court beat down. NRA 1, Everybody who disagrees with them 0. Game over.

Lies and slander. The ruling is that the Constitution GUARANTEES an individual right to own a gun, thereby meaning that the DC Gun ban violates the constitution, the caveat being that "reasonable restrictions" are still legal, and that it needs to be determined what restrictions are reazsonable. California and New York are next in line for a high court beat down. NRA 1, Everybody who disagrees with them 0. Game over.

Great, a biased overview. Tells me exactly... SQUAT.

Lies and slander. The ruling is that the Constitution GUARANTEES an individual right to own a gun, thereby meaning that the DC Gun ban violates the constitution, the caveat being that "reasonable restrictions" are still legal, and that it needs to be determined what restrictions are reazsonable. California and New York are next in line for a high court beat down. NRA 1, Everybody who disagrees with them 0. Game over.

That's still not the actual opinion. Come back when you have the opinion.

Lies and slander. The ruling is that the Constitution GUARANTEES an individual right to own a gun, thereby meaning that the DC Gun ban violates the constitution, the caveat being that "reasonable restrictions" are still legal, and that it needs to be determined what restrictions are reazsonable. California and New York are next in line for a high court beat down. NRA 1, Everybody who disagrees with them 0. Game over.

Hence why every headline on all the news websites state that the DC Hand Gun BAN has been shot down.

That's still not the actual opinion. Come back when you have the opinion.

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

Like anyone wants to read that.
Like I said, some one with a complete thought process know what the opinion is?
Ie, what was their opinion and on what grounds was it made, specifically.

A quick skim looks like it's the fact that the entire class was banned that was the issue. Looking at it, it appears that had it been restrictions and not an outright ban, it would have been upheld.

So anyone fancy a bet on the murder rate going up?

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home.

But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

There we have it.

So, anyone who's bothered to actually read the opinion:

Does it matter that this is DC particularly? If a state enacted a handgun ban, would the ruling apply to them, too? I don't believe the Second Amendment has ever been incorporated, so that would suggest not.

The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.
Idiots.

So anyone fancy a bet on the murder rate going up?
Murder? No.
"Self-defense" homicides and accidental suicides, yes.

So anyone fancy a bet on the murder rate going up?

I'll take that bet.

Great, a biased overview. Tells me exactly... SQUAT.

Simply because I support the winning, and now incontrivertably right side, does not make me biased. That was the exact wording the news used. That because there is an individual right to own guns, any outright ban is unconstitutional, meaning that DC no longer has a ban on handguns. That is the decision. End of sentence. There cannot be any further ban on handguns as a class, nor can any weapon be entirely banned from ownership. You can have a de facto ban like new york, where the reasonable restrictions are exploited to create a ban, and where you couldn't get a gun if you were Jesus, and had the scars to prove it.

That was the exact wording the news used.
Had the news told me what I wanted to know, I wouldn't have asked.

Idiots.

Agreed, what benefit could possibly come out of that.

Had the news told me what I wanted to know, I wouldn't have asked.

The news is exactly as stated:

The 32 year ban on Handguns in D.C. is no more.

Idiots.


Murder? No.
"Self-defense" homicides and accidental suicides, yes.

Trigger locks are still on the books. Forcing a long gun owner to disassemble his firearm is no longer legal.

Next...

A ban would not be legal, as we now have a Federally ensured right to own guns, and the issue of states being able to selectively recognize federal law was resolved some hundred and change years ago. The states may limit and restrict who and how a gun may be obtained, but may not forbid them in their entirety.

Had the news told me what I wanted to know, I wouldn't have asked.

It's all you need to know. For once the news had useful and reliable information. The ban is gone, this is good, trigger locks are on the books, this is debatably good, you no longer need to remove the bolt from your long arm to store it. All of these things are true, stated in the news, and explain exactly what happened.

It's all you need to know. For once the news had useful and reliable information. The ban is gone, this is good, trigger locks are on the books, this is debatably good, you no longer need to remove the bolt from your long arm to store it. All of these things are true, stated in the news, and explain exactly what happened.

and yet none of that is what he asked for. Why's that so hard to understand?

and yet none of that is what he asked for. Why's that so hard to understand?

He asked to be spoon fed the opinion. I did exactly that. Because I didn't go out and do the legwork for him, and simply told him information he was already apparently aware of, and was simply unable to comprehend, I am apparently in the wrong. The opinion is exactly thus. The ban is unconstitutional. Other restrictions are still legal. No more detail is required.

It's all you need to know. For once the news had useful and reliable information. The ban is gone, this is good, trigger locks are on the books, this is debatably good, you no longer need to remove the bolt from your long arm to store it. All of these things are true, stated in the news, and explain exactly what happened.

I'm not seeing that the trigger locks requirement is still on the books. The way I'm reading the articles it says the trigger lock requirement also went bye bye.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

I'll take that bet.


But are you going to nail you colours to your mast and claim the murder rate will go down?

I'm not seeing that the trigger locks requirement is still on the books. The way I'm reading the articles it says the trigger lock requirement also went bye bye.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

That was not what I was getting. I was seeing trigger locks as under the reasonable restrictions. I support the removal of trigger locks, so I'm ok with that anyway. They do, to an extent, negate the purpose of the legalization of handguns.

Woohoo!

It's all you need to know.
As opposed to you lot, I'm not a sucker, it seems. I want to know what their rationale was. You do realize they have to have a rationale based in the Constitution, and usually previous case law, for every ruling, right?

That was not what I was getting. I was seeing trigger locks as under the reasonable restrictions. I support the removal of trigger locks, so I'm ok with that anyway. They do, to an extent, negate the purpose of the legalization of handguns.

The ruling is a double edged sword. It didn't strike down trigger locks per se. All it states is that it is illegal to render a lawful gun inoperable for the purpose of self-defense. So yes...it was struck down but not at the same time. That's my take on it at least.

But are you going to nail you colours to your mast and claim the murder rate will go down?

Yes. It often does go down, so I will certainly accept that muders will decrease, once legal firearms enter circulation. It remains to be seen if DC will negate the change with a de facto ban similar to New York's, or if they'll have shall issue permits like VA.

As opposed to you lot, I'm not a sucker, it seems. I want to know what their rationale was. You do realize they have to have a rational based in the Constitution, and usually previous case law, for every ruling, right?

Yep and if you actually read the ruling, you would have all of your questions answered. They used the Constitution as well as laws dating back to the founding of the United States. They even through in some of the State Constitutions into the mix as well.

The ruling is a double edged sword. It didn't strike down trigger locks per se. All it states is that it is illegal to render a lawful gun inoperable for the purpose of self-defense. So yes...it was struck down but not at the same time. That's my take on it at least.
But it struck down the ability of state's to require a gun be kept stored safely.

nor can any weapon be entirely banned from ownership.

Reread the decision. There are plenty of weapons that can be entirely banned from ownership. Handguns just aren't one of them.

Here's the ruling in full: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

Today is a good day. :D

WOO! I just heard about! Champagne for everyone! :D


And free handguns!:p

Trigger lock requirements become unconstiutional because it violates self defence of the home protections.

people live in DC?!

also bloody USians with your constitution worship stopping our moderately evil British plans for world domination :mad:

Eh...the brits don't pose a threat anymore, your flame died out years ago...now your the US's bitch =P.

Always gotta support the constitution, guns (Being the weapon of the modern era) are the only reasonable way now to do things...you don't hear about the hunter who got himself a good buck by hitting it with a javlin then pouncing and knifing it to death...do ya? Their also the power of the people, if the american people ever got pissed off enough, were lucky enough to be given the ability to purchase guns so that we can revolt...from the people that give us the power to get the guns to revolt o.O.

It has now official. The DC Handgun Ban has finally been overturned.

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

It's only a matter of days before the blood will run knee-deep in D.C. streets.
[/sarcasm]

As a matter of interest, how many people on here does this actually directly affect?

As a matter of interest, how many people on here does this actually directly affect?

Every American

Every American

Every American lives in DC? Well I'll be.....

(See the way I said "directly"... yeh. That changes the meaning of the sentence)

Every American lives in DC? Well I'll be.....

(See the way I said "directly"... yeh. That changes the meaning of the sentence)

It seems to directly affect those DC residents who would otherwise be able to purchase a handgun, i.e. people without a criminal record or history of mental illness, etc. like Heller.

It will also indirectly affect other communities in the USA that have similarly restrictive laws on guns.

But it struck down the ability of state's to require a gun be kept stored safely.

There are many ways to store a gun safely pantless. So no...they really did not strike down the ability of a state to require a gun be kept stored safely.

You do realize they have to have a rationale based in the Constitution, and usually previous case law, for every ruling, right?
Not always.

There are many ways to store a gun safely pantless.
That's TMI.

Not always.
Considering the USSC's job is to rule on the Constitutionality of a law, I would have to say yes.

But are you going to nail you colours to your mast and claim the murder rate will go down?

I will. The Murder rate will go go down in DC and other cities that had bans of the same type.

Considering the USSC's job is to rule on the Constitutionality of a law, I would have to say yes.
This has not stopped them from making rulings without giving a rationale.

This has not stopped them from making rulings without giving a rationale.

Name two times they didn't have a rationale.

There are many ways to store a gun safely pantless. So no...they really did not strike down the ability of a state to require a gun be kept stored safely.

Please cite the methods of storing a gun safely that does not restrict its ability to be operable nearly instantly so it may serve its constitutionally protected purpose of home self defence.

Please cite the methods of storing a gun safely that does not restrict its ability to be operable nearly instantly so it may serve its constitutionally protected purpose of home self defence.

Safety on with no round in the chamber.

Safety on with no round in the chamber.

And no clip in the gun period.

Every American lives in DC? Well I'll be.....

(See the way I said "directly"... yeh. That changes the meaning of the sentence)
I suppose it depends on how you meant "directly". The fact that an amendment to the US Constitution has been further defined would seem to directly affect everyone that is subject to US law. That's sort of the point of having the USSC, isn't it?

And no clip in the gun period.

That would be perferable.

And no clip in the gun period.

Which means you can't use it instantly.

That would be perferable.
That kind of restricts it's immediate usefulness, doesn't it? At our cabin, I keep a loaded shotgun handy. We have all sorts of wildlife up in the mountains and I wouldn't want to lose a step to a few of them.

Safety on with no round in the chamber.

Also not usable instantly.

hooray for citizen shootouts!

Yeah, you never know when a cougar is going to break into your cabin and try to rob you at gunpoint.

Which means you can't use it instantly.

Its still gun safety. Any person who took a class should know that the clip should never be in a gun when stored anyway.

As to using it instantly, if the clip and gun are near eachother, it takes no time to lock and load a gun, especially a handgun.

hooray for citizen shootouts!

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Don't tase me bro!

Its still gun safety. Any person who took a class should know that the clip should never be in a gun when stored anyway.

As to using it instantly, if the clip and gun are near eachother, it takes no time to lock and load a gun, especially a handgun.

^This.

When I had my .45 that's exactly how I stored it.

All you need to do is put the clip into the gun, pull back the slide, release it, and turn the safety off and your ready to shoot. Even relatively unskilled people can do it in under a few seconds if they have the slip next to the gun.

All you need to do is put the clip into the gun, pull back the slide, release it, and turn the safety off and your ready to shoot. Even relatively unskilled people can do it in under a few seconds if they have the slip next to the gun.

This is why a semiautomatic handgun is actually better than a revolver, as a revolver has neither a safety (usually) nor the ability to load/unload quickly.

Don't tase me bro!

This is gun country, son. We ain't got no tasers. You commit a crime 'round here, we just gonna shoot ya.

Welcome to soviet america comrad
in soviet america we have free speech zones miles from any site where it would do any good, we have politically correct speech so we can define any speech we dont like as hate speech and throw you in a camp we are working right quick to get them evil guns out of the hands of the slave.. er i mean the people after all dont want them to hurt themselves.

Welcome to soviet america comrad

Oh for the love of...:headbang:

Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

Yeah, you never know when a cougar is going to break into your cabin and try to rob you at gunpoint.
I see how much time you spend away from your computer.

I see you don't have a sense of humor.

I see you don't have a sense of humor.
Some people can write sarcasm and some can't. Find the shoe that fits.

I see you don't have a sense of humor.

I see you don't under stand predatory animals...

It's not like you're going to come back and burn down the White House again.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=lBIFWueHNJY

I see you don't under stand predatory animals...
Predatory animals have a sense of humor but you two don't?
That seems quite unfair.

Predatory animals have a sense of humor but you two don't?
That seems quite unfair.

I have one, its just that everyone has this Bambi style image about how nature works.

Animals are known to break into houses for food, mostly bears. If you happen to be inside when they break in and try get infront of them and wave your arms and bang pots and pans, you will be attacked.

I have one, its just that everyone has this Bambi style image about how nature works.

Animals are known to break into houses for food, mostly bears. If you happen to be inside when they break in and try get infront of them and wave your arms and bang pots and pans, you will be attacked.
No, I don't think you do. The joke wasn't that cougars/other wild animals would break into the cabin, it's that they would break in and try to rob him at gunpoint.

As usual Reuters has an interesting angle on this news. It seems that our thoughts that this is an existing right are all wrong. Reuters characterizes this decision as granting a "new" right...

Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter.

One wonders where they've been for the last 200 years?

No, I don't think you do. The joke wasn't that cougars/other wild animals would break into the cabin, it's that they would break in and try to rob him at gunpoint.

Cougars don't use guns. They use ninja stars.

As usual Reuters has an interesting angle on this news. It seems that our thoughts that this is an existing right are all wrong. Reuters characterizes this decision as granting a "new" right...

Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter.

One wonders where they've been for the last 200 years?

Non-existent? :D

Cougars don't use guns. They use ninja stars.
Oh of course, how could I have been so blind.
Of course that means the only way to fend them off is to use swords. Ninjas are immune to guns.

Oh of course, how could I have been so blind.
Of course that means the only way to fend them off is to use swords. Ninjas are immune to guns.

Unless you use Flechette rounds, those are like mini dager bullets.

So anyone fancy a bet on the murder rate going up?

why would it? anyone who wants a gun already has one.

As usual Reuters has an interesting angle on this news. It seems that our thoughts that this is an existing right are all wrong. Reuters characterizes this decision as granting a "new" right...

Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter.

One wonders where they've been for the last 200 years?

according to some guy on the radio the right to own guns in order to have a well run militia has been long established. whether or not we have a right to own guns without regard to a militia has NOT been long established.

until today

so while we can assume that the ruling means that we have always had this right no matter that it has not been spelled out, reuters believes that it starts today.

\ reuters believes that it starts today.

which from a practical perspective may seem valid, from a legal perspective...it's wrong.

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/15649-1/clip-magazine0491.jpg

Anyway, this is a good day. Citizens can now defend themselves with firearms in DC. Next on the list, Chicago.

As usual Reuters has an interesting angle on this news. It seems that our thoughts that this is an existing right are all wrong. Reuters characterizes this decision as granting a "new" right...

Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter.

One wonders where they've been for the last 200 years?

I noticed that too. :p Kinda funny. It's still nice to see an explicit restatement of the right, since it's only been implied so far (many times, but still). And it's never bad to see extremists defeated.

It has now official. The DC Handgun Ban has finally been overturned.

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

Hmm...it will be interesting to see what effect--if any--this will have on crime, specifically violent crime. If violent crime goes up, those who supported the ban will be justified, but if it goes down, those who were against the ban would be justified.

As for my prediction? I doubt it'll change much of anything, to be honest.

Hmm...it will be interesting to see what effect--if any--this will have on crime, specifically violent crime. If violent crime goes up, those who supported the ban will be justified, but if it goes down, those who were against the ban would be justified.

As for my prediction? I doubt it'll change much of anything, to be honest.

The crime will go up, and there will be more arrests instead from would-be victims killing/seriously wounding the would-be criminals. THEN crime will go down because no one wants to have a bullet in their Head/leg/arm/chest/butt/fill-in-the-blank. :)

Hmm...it will be interesting to see what effect--if any--this will have on crime, specifically violent crime. If violent crime goes up, those who supported the ban will be justified, but if it goes down, those who were against the ban would be justified.

No, they won't. We don't deny a group of citizens a fundamental right in order to lower the crime rate, even if some statistician says it would help.

Yes. It often does go down, so I will certainly accept that muders will decrease, once legal firearms enter circulation.
Yeah, it will go down just like it is going down in Florida (http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/fsac/Crime_Trends/violent/fa_index.asp)!! :p

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/fsac/Crime_Trends/graphics/fa_involved.gif

More guns = more dead people.

More guns = more dead people.

"Firearm-involved?" That doesn't mean what you're claiming it means.

No, they won't. We don't deny a group of citizens a fundamental right in order to lower the crime rate, even if some statistician says it would help.

Perhaps I should have said will FEEL justified.

Attacking a method to commit violent crime won't stop violent crime. Admittedly by attacking this particular method we can reduce the SEVERITY of violent crime, but only to certain degrees. Banning all the guns in the world would never eliminate it, and given that firearms can be pretty useful tools when used for legal purposes, there's little reason to ban them.

Instead, we should focus on eliminating the causes of violent crime, such as the lack of decent education, the poor job base, and the other core causes of poverty. Added to that we should remove the impetus towards crimes for the sake of drugs or prostitution by legalizing and regulating those businesses.

Will this solve violent crime entirely? No. But it would certainly lower violent crime much more effectively than simply removing a method of executing a crime would.

All you need to do is put the clip into the gun, pull back the slide, release it, and turn the safety off and your ready to shoot. Even relatively unskilled people can do it in under a few seconds if they have the slip next to the gun.

Unfortunately, that's still far longer than it takes for the other guy to pull the trigger.

Perhaps I should have said will FEEL justified.


That's helpful. ;) Some will, no question.

As to lowering the crimerate in general, there are dozens of good proposals which will never be put into effect. Ditto for prison reform (this gets crazier than you would believe in California). Those are different issues.

"Firearm-involved?" That doesn't mean what you're claiming it means.
Okay then....what exactly does my claim mean?

Okay then....what exactly does my claim mean?

Your chart doesn't support the claim that increasing the number of guns increases the number of "dead people." A U-shaped curve over a 12-year period isn't helpful to begin with, and there are no numbers on gun ownership per capita in the chart. A definition of "firearm-involved" seems to be in order as well. In some places, it seems like they're using a wide definition, and in others it seems too narrow (only eight percent of manslaughter cases involved a gun?). In any case, the great majority of firearm and non-firearm-related crimes come from three or four counties. Where I'm from at least, 2/3 of murders are gang-related, which means spikes and dips in the murder/manslaughter rate are usually completely unrelated to trends in gun ownership.

Yeah, it will go down just like it is going down in Florida (http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/fsac/Crime_Trends/violent/fa_index.asp)!! :p

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/fsac/Crime_Trends/graphics/fa_involved.gif

More guns = more dead people.

So, let me get this straight. Gun related crime = death every time?

What exactly are gun laws in Florida? When were they enacted? What is it compared to other states?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Well I just finished reading the entire decision (found here http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf ) and walked away glad to see that SCOTUS has finally put to rest the silly "collectivist" argument about our right to keep and bear arms, but a bit concerned/confused about one issue - that of the 2nd Amendment's application to the states and incorporation under the 14th Amendment. They stated in footnote 23 to the majority opinion:
With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation,
a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also
said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did
not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by
our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252,
265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed
that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.
emphasis added
No where else in the opinion is the doctrine of incorporation really referenced and the District of Columbia is not a state. I believe the door is still open, therefore, for a future court to rule that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states, but only applies to the Federal Government. Admittedly there is some language in the opinion that would appear to indicate it applies to the states as well, but it is easily argued, in light of the footnote quoted above, that such language is mere dicta being used to explain why there is an individual right that the federal government cannot infringe upon, but that the court has not expressly ruled that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated via the 14th and applies to the states.

I am willing to be told that I misread the decision in this regard and I hope I have, but I don't see it. The dissent seems to assume it, but since the majority expressly states that the issue was not presented or before them, I am not so sure it is safe to assume this decision does anymore than establish that the federal government cannot infringe on the individual's right to keep and bear arms. I don't know that it is safe to assume it means a state isn't free to do so if it chooses.

thoughts?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=AjlifXhXC4oZtkEzZXcw4uxMEP0E



Sounds like Neo Art gets to be wrong. SCOTUS says that the Second Amendment is about the individual right to keep and bear arms.

I can see the panic spreading now amongst those who want to ban guns...

I like this decision. This doesn't mean there cannot be regulation of weapons. I am all for the right of an individual to own a gun if they are lawful.

Does anyone with a complete thought process know what the majority's opinion was?

Here, you can read the court's opinion and the dissenting opinion.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

So, let me get this straight. Gun related crime = death every time?
I didn't say that at all.

What exactly are gun laws in Florida? When were they enacted? What is it compared to other states?
Florida has some of the most liberal gun laws in the US, and citizens have had the right to carry concealed weapons since 1987, yet Florida has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country.

In 2005 Florida enacted the Castle Doctrine yet crime with firearms is increasing steadily in Florida.

Compare for yourself:

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/UCR/2007/CIF_annual07.pdf

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/UCR/2006/CIF_annual06.pdf

In the past 3 years alone, $23,466,929 worth of firearms have been stolen in Florida. That is a lot of crime guns on the streets.

Yeah, that's what I thought.
What exactly is your thought on all that?

As opposed to you lot, I'm not a sucker, it seems. I want to know what their rationale was. You do realize they have to have a rationale based in the Constitution, and usually previous case law, for every ruling, right?

I've posted the link for you to read the opinions on both sides. The case law is stated as such. I read through the opinion and so can you. Is it mostly boring and tedious? Yes! They ruled that it is unconstitutional for the law to forbid guns for self defense and hunting. In summary they were of the opinion that the right to own a gun is expressly written in the Constitution.

I've posted the link for you to read the opinions on both sides. The case law is stated as such. I read through the opinion and so can you. Is it mostly boring and tedious? Yes! They ruled that it is unconstitutional for the law to forbid guns for self defense and hunting. In summary they were of the opinion that the right to own a gun is expressly written in the Constitution.
I still want to know if it applies to the states via the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment though, that is a big issue I think the opinion is not so clear about.

What exactly is your thought on all that?

don't hold your breath.

I will begin removing the safety features on my pie launchers immediately. :)

thoughts?

I asked about this general issue earlier. From what you've quoted, I think your interpretation is correct: at this point, it has been left an open question as to whether the Second Amendment can be incorporated against the states, with some very old precedent suggesting not.

I asked about this general issue earlier. From what you've quoted, I think your interpretation is correct: at this point, it has been left an open question as to whether the Second Amendment can be incorporated against the states, with some very old precedent suggesting not.
Yah, and if the question is answered in the negative, then Chicago's, New York's, etc. laws will not be subject to this ruling and will stand. It is going to be interesting to see how that shakes now - I predict this will be the next big battle over the 2nd Amendment, whether it applies to the states. Whether it is or is not incorporated by the 14th Amendment is a much more complicated issue to argue than the issue of individual vs. collective right.

Murder? No.
"Self-defense" homicides and accidental suicides, yes.

Accompanied by elevated instances of the Uncle Jimbo Doctrine in action.

"Look out, it's coming right for us!!"

:mp5:

It has now official. The DC Handgun Ban has finally been overturned.

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

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :D

/does the happy dance

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=AjlifXhXC4oZtkEzZXcw4uxMEP0E



Sounds like Neo Art gets to be wrong. SCOTUS says that the Second Amendment is about the individual right to keep and bear arms.

I can see the panic spreading now amongst those who want to ban guns...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13796140&postcount=147

The right to own handguns for self-defense. Makes sense.

But "Safety Locks, Who Needs Them?"

That's what I find real disturbing about the ruling.

And no clip in the gun period.

It's magazine, not clip (at least, it is for most firearms).

:p

Hmm...it will be interesting to see what effect--if any--this will have on crime, specifically violent crime. If violent crime goes up, those who supported the ban will be justified, but if it goes down, those who were against the ban would be justified.

As for my prediction? I doubt it'll change much of anything, to be honest.

My thoughts as well. DC is right next to Virginia, where an individual can, quite easily, purchase a wide variety of firearms. There would seem to be virtually nothing, short of a police search associated with a traffic violation of some sort, to stop a dedicated transporter of weapons from getting one into DC.

All I can see this ruling doing is eliminating a class of crime, specifically, a possession crime, and the only people truly going to be affected are those who would not possess a firearm with external criminal intent.

I doubt much of anything in DC will change.

Florida has some of the most liberal gun laws in the US, and citizens have had the right to carry concealed weapons since 1987, yet Florida has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country.

In 2005 Florida enacted the Castle Doctrine yet crime with firearms is increasing steadily in Florida.


I daresay there are other issues at work in Florida, besides liberal gun and self defense laws.

Specifically those relating to the large, restive, unintegrated Cuban-American community (Damn you Castro. Damn you to hell.) Oh, and elderly Jews and midwesterners. Them too.

The right to own handguns for self-defense. Makes sense.

But "Safety Locks, Who Needs Them?"

That's what I find real disturbing about the ruling.

While trigger locks might pass muster as a feel-good measure for people who have children, the most effective way to keep your child from injuring or killing himself or someone else with your gun is education in gun safety and function.

Quick-access handgun safes are also readily available.

Bear in mind, the right to keep and bear arms is not divorced from function, but is instead tied to a gun's ability to be used to shoot someone in self-defense.

It's magazine, not clip (at least, it is for most firearms).

:p

Its all the same to me :D

The right to own handguns for self-defense. Makes sense.

But "Safety Locks, Who Needs Them?"

That's what I find real disturbing about the ruling.

Safely locks is the equivelent of the government telling you, sure you can have a handgun but you have to keep each piece of the gun in a seperate room...

The right to own handguns for self-defense. Makes sense.

But "Safety Locks, Who Needs Them?"

That's what I find real disturbing about the ruling.

no one is saying that. if you have kids you need the damn things. but as a single male I don't see any kids accidentally getting into my closet and shooting themselves.

*grumbles* ... stupid judges... *grumbles* ... bad decision... *grumbles* ... legislating from the bench... *grumbles* ... can't wait for it to be overturned... *grumbles* this means nothing!


Seriously, I can't say I agree with the interpretation of the second amendment and I can't help but wonder if Bush hadn't been elected to nominate more conservative judges if they would have reached the same conclusion.

But it's done and the debate is somewhat settled. Enjoy your victory, and shoot in the air while you hoot and holler. We can now move to other, more important issues such as gay-right and ID in school.

*grumbles* ... stupid judges... *grumbles* ... bad decision... *grumbles* ... legislating from the bench... *grumbles* ... can't wait for it to be overturned... *grumbles* this means nothing!


Seriously, I can't say I agree with the interpretation of the second amendment and I can't help but wonder if Bush hadn't been elected to nominate more conservative judges if they would have reached the same conclusion.

1) It was the correct interpretation even if people do not agree with it. Many people have stated that the right to bear arms (and a gun is part of that) is a protected right and now the Supreme Court said the samething.

2) Nice Conspiracy

But it's done and the debate is somewhat settled. Enjoy your victory, and shoot in the air while you hoot and holler. We can now move to other, more important issues such as gay-right and ID in school.

These issues are not more important. There are far more pressing issues to deal with than these.

no one is saying that. if you have kids you need the damn things. but as a self-centered person who can't imagine anyone existing in any scenario besides my own I don't see any kids accidentally getting into a closet and shooting themselves.

Fixed it for you.


These issues are not more important. There are far more pressing issues to deal with than these.
The rights to privacy, free expression, and equality under the law are far, far more important than anything I imagine you are referring to.

1) It was the correct interpretation even if people do not agree with it. Many people have stated that the right to bear arms (and a gun is part of that) is a protected right and now the Supreme Court said the samething.

2) Nice Conspiracy

I don't know why I bother replying to you but here it is:

1) You think it was the correct interpretation. I don't. That's why it's called interpretation.

2) More like general musings.


These issues are not more important. There are far more pressing issues to deal with than these.

Righty-o. In the grand scheme of things, they all are minor issues and that's why I picked those. To show the sheer absurdity to waste so much space and time on these when people are dying by the boatload elsewhere.

*grumbles* ... stupid judges... *grumbles* ... bad decision... *grumbles* ... legislating from the bench... *grumbles* ... can't wait for it to be overturned... *grumbles* this means nothing!


Seriously, I can't say I agree with the interpretation of the second amendment and I can't help but wonder if Bush hadn't been elected to nominate more conservative judges if they would have reached the same conclusion.

But it's done and the debate is somewhat settled. Enjoy your victory, and shoot in the air while you hoot and holler. We can now move to other, more important issues such as gay-right and ID in school.

Why the hell would I fire my rifle into the air. That's no way to hit the targets I aim at. Also, since I'm not an owl (although I play one on TV :p), I don't hoot. I do however, holler when I do something like smash a finger with a hammer, drop something heavy on my foot, hit my head on a low doorway, etc....

Fixed it for you.


The rights to privacy, free expression, and equality under the law are far, far more important than anything I imagine you are referring to.

While any accidental death is a tragedy, the fact is that accidental deaths by children (defined as people under the age of 18, not as defined by the Democrats in their studies as anyone under the age of 25) is quite low, especially when compared to other things like swimming pools.

Intentional death by firearm is also very low for the general population - 64 percent lower over the past 10 years. There is an exception - within the African-American population which comprises 18% of the population, but half of the firearm violence offenders, half of the firearm murderers, and half of the firearm violence victims.

The problem is not guns. The problem is that they're doing *something* that encourages them to shoot the hell out of each other.

*grumbles* ... stupid judges... *grumbles* ... bad decision... *grumbles* ... legislating from the bench... *grumbles* ... can't wait for it to be overturned... *grumbles* this means nothing!Curious, did you actually read the opinion?

Seriously, I can't say I agree with the interpretation of the second amendment and I can't help but wonder if Bush hadn't been elected to nominate more conservative judges if they would have reached the same conclusion. I think you wandering into Tinfoil Hat territory here.

But it's done and the debate is somewhat settled. Enjoy your victory, and shoot in the air while you hoot and holler. We can now move to other, more important issues such as gay-right and ID in school.I'm not hooting and hollering and I won't be shooting anything into the air. I will quietly celebrate the triumph of logical interpretation and the settlement of a question that was never even considered a question when the constitution was drafted and only became an issue in relatively recent times as the desire of people to limit access to guns grew.

*grumbles* ... stupid judges... *grumbles* ... bad decision... *grumbles* ... legislating from the bench... *grumbles* ... can't wait for it to be overturned... *grumbles* this means nothing!


Seriously, I can't say I agree with the interpretation of the second amendment and I can't help but wonder if Bush hadn't been elected to nominate more conservative judges if they would have reached the same conclusion.

But it's done and the debate is somewhat settled. Enjoy your victory, and shoot in the air while you hoot and holler. We can now move to other, more important issues such as gay-right and ID in school.
I do believe that the dissenters made some fairly valid points against the majority. Here is one that exemplifies that the majority was not up to snuff in making their decision (page 154):

The majority spends the first 54 pages of its opinion
attempting to rebut JUSTICE STEVENS’ evidence that the
Amendment was enacted with a purely militia-related
purpose. In the majority’s view, the Amendment also
protects an interest in armed personal self-defense, at
least to some degree. But the majority does not tell us
precisely what that interest is. “Putting all of [the Second
Amendment’s] textual elements together,” the majority
says, “we find that they guarantee the individual right to
possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Ante,
at 19. Then, three pages later, it says that “we do not read
the Second Amendment to permit citizens to carry arms
for any sort of confrontation.” Ante, at 22. Yet, with one
critical exception, it does not explain which confrontations
count. It simply leaves that question unanswered.
There are more compelling arguments to go along with this one.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/Mattlevi/bacon/motivator9064958.jpg

The majority spends the first 54 pages of its opinion
attempting to rebut JUSTICE STEVENS’ evidence that the
Amendment was enacted with a purely militia-related
purpose. In the majority’s view, the Amendment also
protects an interest in armed personal self-defense, at
least to some degree. But the majority does not tell us
precisely what that interest is. “Putting all of [the Second
Amendment’s] textual elements together,” the majority
says, “we find that they guarantee the individual right to
possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Ante,
at 19. Then, three pages later, it says that “we do not read
the Second Amendment to permit citizens to carry arms
for any sort of confrontation.” Ante, at 22. Yet, with one
critical exception, it does not explain which confrontations
count. It simply leaves that question unanswered.
There was no need to answer the question as to which confrontations were ok and which were not - this is not a compelling argument that the majority opinion is incorrect, merely a criticism that it did not answer a question and clearly define which confrontations were being discussed and which were not. If you wish to say they should have more clearly deliniated when it was ok to carry a weapon and when it wasn't, that is fine. But the point of the opinion was that the 2nd Amendment guarrantees a personal right to bear arms for self-defense in the home. It was not aimed at defining every single situation where it was permissible to bear arms just as it was not aimed at defining exactly what arms were and were not permitted to be born.

The decision is only standing for the proposition that there is a personal right to bear arms, but beyond the right to possess a handgun in the home for self defense, the limits on that right are irrellevant to the decision. All you have quoted from the dissent does is critisize the majority for not telling us what the limits on the right were. It doesn't establish they were wrong to find the right exists.

While any accidental death is a tragedy, the fact is that accidental deaths by children (defined as people under the age of 18, not as defined by the Democrats in their studies as anyone under the age of 25) is quite low, especially when compared to other things like swimming pools.

Intentional death by firearm is also very low for the general population - 64 percent lower over the past 10 years. There is an exception - within the African-American population which comprises 18% of the population, but half of the firearm violence offenders, half of the firearm murderers, and half of the firearm violence victims.

The problem is not guns. The problem is that they're doing *something* that encourages them to shoot the hell out of each other.
Accidentally?

But the point of the opinion was that the 2nd Amendment guarrantees a personal right to bear arms for self-defense in the home. It was not aimed at defining every single situation where it was permissible to bear arms just as it was not aimed at defining exactly what arms were and were not permitted to be born.
The point of the minority is that the majority was stretching to make their "point."
As shown by
“Putting all of [the Second Amendment’s] textual elements together,” the majority says, “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Ante, at 19. Then, three pages later, it says that “we do not read the Second Amendment to permit citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation.”

Accidentally?

No, it seems that blacks just enjoy shooting each other.

At least that what the statistics indicate.

No, it seems that blacks just enjoy shooting each other.

At least that what the statistics indicate.

I don't think you got the irony. Your entire post was about accidental shooting, until you started talking about black people, at which point you jumped rails.

I don't think you got the irony. Your entire post was about accidental shooting, until you started talking about black people, at which point you jumped rails.

I think I'm pointing out that accidental shootings are a minor problem. If you're going to ban guns for that reason, then ban skateboards, swimming pools, and a host of other things, because they accidentally kill kids.

If people die from guns, it's intentional, and largely a problem for a minority of the population - and only because they've self-socialized to shoot the hell out of each other.

Curious, did you actually read the opinion?

I cannot believe people failed to spot I used all the classic talking-points of a disagreement with the decision. I mean, legislating from the bench should have shown you I was jesting.



I think you wandering into Tinfoil Hat territory here.
Not at all. Imagine for a second that Gore is elected instead of Bush. Who's to say who's going to be the next chief justice instead of the one appointed by Bush. Heck, change even one judge and that decision goes the other way. Which sides did the judges appointed by Bush sided with? (Honest question, didn't look up the answer)


I'm not hooting and hollering and I won't be shooting anything into the air. I will quietly celebrate the triumph of logical interpretation and the settlement of a question that was never even considered a question when the constitution was drafted and only became an issue in relatively recent times as the desire of people to limit access to guns grew.
Whatever. Celebrate however you see fit.

Not at all. Imagine for a second that Gore is elected instead of Bush. Who's to say who's going to be the next chief justice instead of the one appointed by Bush. Heck, change even one judge and that decision goes the other way. Which sides did the judges appointed by Bush sided with? (Honest question, didn't look up the answer)

Both sided with the majority, which consisted of Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito.

The dissent was Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg and Breyer.

Both sided with the majority

Shocker, that.

The Court ruled properly and im frankly embarassed that the vote was as close as it was. I realize the Constitution isnt interpreted by popular vote, however it would be safe to assume that if you polled the average American, id make a wag that 90% of Americans believe the Second Amendment gives Americans the Right to Bear Arms. Period. Militia never even considered.

Not at all. Imagine for a second that Gore is elected instead of Bush. Who's to say who's going to be the next chief justice instead of the one appointed by Bush. Heck, change even one judge and that decision goes the other way. Which sides did the judges appointed by Bush sided with? (Honest question, didn't look up the answer)

The decision would have went the other way if O'Conner were still on the bench.

Fixed it for you.


The rights to privacy, free expression, and equality under the law are far, far more important than anything I imagine you are referring to.

what other people ?

someone breaking in ???
If i am home thats what the gun is for. IF they break in and get to where i keep my gun before me then I doubt a safety lock will save me.

If they get there when I am not there they can just steal the gun take it to a garage and disable the lock there.

The decision would have went the other way if O'Conner were still on the bench.

wait until abortion comes up.... we might be made a pro life country.

what other people ?

someone breaking in ???
If i am home thats what the gun is for. IF they break in and get to where i keep my gun before me then I doubt a safety lock will save me.

If they get there when I am not there they can just steal the gun take it to a garage and disable the lock there.
Wow, that went so far over your head...

wait until abortion comes up.... we might be made a pro life country.
Possible. Definite 3 votes for anti-abortion. Roberts I give an 85% towards anti-abortion. Kennedy, however, is the swing vote and he leans towards pro-choice.

Both sided with the majority, which consisted of Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito.

The dissent was Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg and Breyer.

Thank You.

And they say I'm nuts. Imagine my surprise to be right on the money.

Thank You.

And they say I'm nuts. Imagine my surprise to be right on the money.

Well it isn't exactly hard to guess Thomas' ruling. Ask Stevens what his ruling is and Thomas' will be the opposite. He even gave the only dissenting opinion on a ruling the other day. The only dissenting opinion on a heavily conservative court in which Alito, Roberts, and even Scalia sided with the liberal and moderate judges.

It just occurred to me that there is a hell of a business opportunity out there... Two people are licensed to sell guns in D.C. There are no stores. If I lived out there, I'd be first in line to open the first gun store.

Hotwife, your stomping grounds are near D.C. Have you thought about it?

It just occurred to me that there is a hell of a business opportunity out there... Two people are licensed to sell guns in D.C. There are no stores. If I lived out there, I'd be first in line to open the first gun store.
That will just cut into the gun runners business. You know, the gun runners from Virginia and Maryland.

That will just cut into the gun runners business. You know, the gun runners from Virginia and Maryland.
Yeah, but they'll be selling at black market prices and I could sell at retail. Or even discount...

It just occurred to me that there is a hell of a business opportunity out there... Two people are licensed to sell guns in D.C. There are no stores. If I lived out there, I'd be first in line to open the first gun store.

Hotwife, your stomping grounds are near D.C. Have you thought about it?

DC is tiny. everyone who wants a gun has already bought one.

its not a huge untapped market to be taken advantage of by someone who has no other reason to want to own a store there.

DC is tiny. everyone who wants a gun has already bought one.

its not a huge untapped market to be taken advantage of by someone who has no other reason to want to own a store there.
What other reason is there to own a store but to profit from it?

What other reason is there to own a store but to profit from it?

To provide a convenient explanation for the massive amounts of electricity they use to grow marijuana.

Interesting result...

Well, that's settled. Only took 200+ years too. Anybody want a cup o' tea?

The decision would have went the other way if O'Conner were still on the bench.

You really do not know that for sure.

What other reason is there to own a store but to profit from it?

is that what i said?

there is no reason to open a gun store in DC if you have no other reason to want to have a store in that city.

it would be no more profitable than a gun store in the city of similar population you already live in or near. there is no huge built up unserved demand. they are being served already by stores in maryland and virginia.