Jump to content


Photo

SCOTUS Accepts!


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
410 replies to this topic

#31 ishmo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,603 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 05

Posted 20 November 2007 - 08:25 PM

Gun control advocates worry that the court's action will embolden gun rights advocates. Dennis A. Henigan of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun violence argues, "The whole purpose of the litigation is to achieve a Supreme Court precedent that they will use to attack many other laws."


Of course the will. I hear the chat on this forum and many want to use the DC case to start working on Chicago. What it tells me is they are scared. I so think the Supreme Court is also scared of this as well. The Brady Campaign for the prevention of gun ownership do not want this case to be heard before the presidential elections, because that would mean that gun control would be on center stage again in the elections.

Many of the democrats don't want that, especially Hilary Clinton, because many of them want the swing voters and gun control ad their stance on it would not help them at all. The main question is do republicans feel the same way. I think Gulliani and Romni would be in the same boat as the democrats. So there may be an effort to delay this proceding until after the elections by both sides of politics.

Somebody is definitely scared of what's coming and I think it's mostly the BC and DC. I don't think the SCOTUS is overly intimidated by this case but I do think they realize the impact their decision will have, both long and short term. No one on the current SCOTUS has ever had to rule on a 2A case at this level but I expect some remember that little tempest in a teapot they had over the "hanging chads" and the heat they took for their decision. As to delaying the proceeding until after the election the SCOTUS determines who and when attorneys appear, not the Democrats or Republicans.

For some strange reason I think the ruling will be favorable for us at the end.

#32 Ocellairs

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,282 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 05

Posted 20 November 2007 - 09:44 PM

Addition reading material is to be had here.

But a ruling by the Court recognizing an individual right to have a gun almost surely would lead to new test cases on whether to extend the Amendments guarantee so that it applied to state and local laws, too. The Court last confronted that issue in Presser v. illinois, in 1886, finding that the Amendment was not binding on the states.


...above from the article in the link.

Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
Richard M Nixon


For I dipped into the Future, far as human eye could see; saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be.

Alfred Lord Tennyson

1842


Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.


#33 sticks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 07

Posted 21 November 2007 - 01:27 AM

And since your gift will be going to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund, it will be fully tax deductible!


I object!
Posted Image

#34 tplane37

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 07

Posted 21 November 2007 - 09:00 AM

Here's one I found this morning....looks to me like the news can't decide exactly where they stand now when it comes to Gun Control....so is this a subtle attempt to remain "middle of the road?"

Attached Files


I gave an oath when I enlisted in the United States Navy,

"...to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Though I may no longer be enlisted, and no longer have an obligation to the U.S. Navy, I still have a moral obligation to my country, my freedom, and the protection of my family.

I will stand by that oath for as long as I live.

Freedom's not free, the day we quit fighting for it is the day we will loose it.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Author: unknown

"The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity -- unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity." -Henry Clay

#35 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,297 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 21 November 2007 - 10:21 AM

This is one of the best 'parsings' of the Second Amendment I have seen:

http://www.scotusblo.../#comment-13043

Article II of the Bill of Rights is a Ciceronian model of a periodic sentence. The framers of the Bill of Rights were Classically trained scholars and rhetoricians, and in crafting the Second Amendment created a rhetorical metaphor that structurally and grammatically mirrors the rights of the people it sets out:

Article II is constructed of two dependent clauses which are mediated by a final independent clause. As a Ciceronian rhetorical model, it is elaborately ornate (as compared to the more spare Senecan rhetorical style).

As periodic sentence, Article II structures its first two clauses to depend upon the independent grammatical structure of its final clause.

Other examples of Ciceronian, periodic construction are contained in the first sentences of the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the US Constitution.

“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.”

Not only is Article II structurally elaborate, and rhetorically ornate, it is poetically metaphorical.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state” is NOT about “state’s rights” but rather signifies “a free state” of liberty.

“A well regulated militia” is discussed in Hamilton’s “Federalist” No. 29 “Concerning The Militia.” Hamilton and the framers of the US Constitution were conflicted about the potential for a government militia becoming the armed oppressive mechanism of a tyrannical government.

The framers of the Constitution held, as noted in the Declaration of Independence, that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Accordingly, the government’s militia would be “well regulated” because holding the government’s military power in check by the consent of the governed is “necessary to the security of a free state.” Liberty requires that the army of the government be regulated by the people.

The necessity of a well regulated militia requires that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” because the regulation of the militia by the people is necessary to the security of liberty.

Grammatically, rhetorically, and in an elegant metaphor the framers of the Bill of Rights tell us that the security of liberty requires that the government militia be well regulated, and that “regulation” depends – grammatically, rhetorically, and politically — upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense against a tyrannical government.

It’s not about “states rights,” not about the establishment of a “state militia,” and it’s not about duck hunting.

It’s about the people’s right to hold the government in check though the mechanism of armed defense.

Comment by G. Alan Bergerson — November 20, 2007 @ 11:51 pm


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#36 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,297 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 21 November 2007 - 10:24 AM

My own humble contributions (pasting here as sometimes they seem to get stuck somewhere):

I think the court *should* rule that:

The people indeed have an individual right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are members of an organized (regulated) state militia (they will likely limit it to small arms—I certainly don’t see a militia use for serrin gas or nukes and the likes since they are not defensive weapons).

The “well-regulated” clause applies to the state militia, not the people themselves. It lays the burden of training and disciplining the militia on the states.

Comment by David Lawson — November 21, 2007 @ 10:02 am

Now let’s address ‘reasonable’ restrictions.

I’m of the opinion that ‘my right to swing my fist ends at your nose.’ This means that rights are only curtailed when they harm another.

I think this is the basis for the limits on free speech. When speech causes harm it is not protected and the person who uses speech to harm can be held civilly and criminally liable. This addresses such things as libel and slander. Modern courts have held that truth is a protection against harmful speech (though this has not always been the case.)

So ‘reasonable’ restrictions on speech address how speech is used to harm someone rather than the type of speech or the technology used (printing press versus internet, etc).

What are ‘reasonable’ restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms? Seems logical that those restrictions should be analogous to the restrictions on speech. Use of firearms that harms another. To me, this would include things like murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, perhaps excessive noise in a residential neighborhood and the like. Background checks to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining firearms (at least via legitimate means) seems reasonable. Waiting periods, gun bans, transportation bans, excessive storage requirements, etc do not.

A great majority of the gun laws on the books and those proposed amount to prior restraint and therefore, in my opinion, do not pass constitutional muster. They are not reasonable.

It is said that ‘you can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded theater’. This is because you can create a panic that causes harm to others. However, we don’t prevent you from having the ability to do so. If there is a fire, you certainly need the ability to yell ‘fire’.

The same applies to firearms. You can’t fire your gun in a crowded theater. But should you be restricted from having a gun in a crowded theater? What if a madman with a firearm or other weapon enters the theater and begins killing people? You’d then have the right to fire in defense.

Comment by David Lawson — November 21, 2007 @ 10:47 am


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#37 ilphil

    Ornery Skeptic

  • Members
  • 2,718 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 05

Posted 21 November 2007 - 06:44 PM

And since your gift will be going to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund, it will be fully tax deductible!


I object!


Since they are clearly a political lobbying group how the heck can contributions to them be tax deductible, but contributions to the NRA-ILA or to any Right To Life group aren't?
Talk about hypocritical... :tongue:

#38 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 10,859 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 21 November 2007 - 06:53 PM

And since your gift will be going to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund, it will be fully tax deductible!


I object!


Since they are clearly a political lobbying group how the heck can contributions to them be tax deductible, but contributions to the NRA-ILA or to any Right To Life group aren't?
Talk about hypocritical... :tongue:



The anti Second Amendment aguements are all about hypocracy!!!!!!

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#39 predator1972baz

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,688 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 05

Posted 21 November 2007 - 07:03 PM

I have to disagree with the delay! You are right though on the democrat thinking, possible (and) some republicans also.


Why do you disagree ? To me I have noticed that gun control is an issue that both sides want to ignore. Now granted I think Fred Thomson and Ron Paul would have a major advantage with this issue, but romni and Guliani pushing this issue would be a major disadvantage because they may look like hypocrites if they went pro-gun all of a sudden. So to me, I just don't see either side wanting this going major before elections.

But also I'm from the mindset that the supreme court has some political reasons for it. Trust me, if all the republican candidates were extreme pro-gun this issue may be brought up in the supreme court to force the democrats hand. The dems don't want to show their hand in gun control because they may change swing voters. They rely on obscuraty. Obama definitely does because if he starts saying "I want to start banning all semi-automatic weapons" there goes his election chances. Hilary doesn't because she is trying to look moderate to get the middle ground voters.

She isn't worries about getting your vote because she knows you will never vote for her, and if you had a choice not to vote or vote for her, you wouldn't vote and she knows that. She is concerned with people that may vote for her. That is why she doesn't want to tip her hand on gun control and I bet you prays that it never becomes big time.

The pro-2a ruling would help Ron Paul and Fred Thomson defintely. It probably would get the NRA to endorce Fred Thompson which will help.

Posted Image

AIRBORNE !!


#40 Ocellairs

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,282 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 05

Posted 21 November 2007 - 07:52 PM

Here's a thought....of the crystal ball origin!

How many justices are gun owners in their home states, or have (or have had) carry permits?

...and what are the gun laws in those justices home states?

Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
Richard M Nixon


For I dipped into the Future, far as human eye could see; saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be.

Alfred Lord Tennyson

1842


Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.


#41 ishmo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,603 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 05

Posted 21 November 2007 - 09:30 PM

This is one of the best 'parsings' of the Second Amendment I have seen:

http://www.scotusblo.../#comment-13043

Article II of the Bill of Rights is a Ciceronian model of a periodic sentence. The framers of the Bill of Rights were Classically trained scholars and rhetoricians, and in crafting the Second Amendment created a rhetorical metaphor that structurally and grammatically mirrors the rights of the people it sets out:

Article II is constructed of two dependent clauses which are mediated by a final independent clause. As a Ciceronian rhetorical model, it is elaborately ornate (as compared to the more spare Senecan rhetorical style).

As periodic sentence, Article II structures its first two clauses to depend upon the independent grammatical structure of its final clause.

Other examples of Ciceronian, periodic construction are contained in the first sentences of the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the US Constitution.

“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.”

Not only is Article II structurally elaborate, and rhetorically ornate, it is poetically metaphorical.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state” is NOT about “state’s rights” but rather signifies “a free state” of liberty.

“A well regulated militia” is discussed in Hamilton’s “Federalist” No. 29 “Concerning The Militia.” Hamilton and the framers of the US Constitution were conflicted about the potential for a government militia becoming the armed oppressive mechanism of a tyrannical government.

The framers of the Constitution held, as noted in the Declaration of Independence, that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Accordingly, the government’s militia would be “well regulated” because holding the government’s military power in check by the consent of the governed is “necessary to the security of a free state.” Liberty requires that the army of the government be regulated by the people.

The necessity of a well regulated militia requires that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” because the regulation of the militia by the people is necessary to the security of liberty.

Grammatically, rhetorically, and in an elegant metaphor the framers of the Bill of Rights tell us that the security of liberty requires that the government militia be well regulated, and that “regulation” depends – grammatically, rhetorically, and politically — upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense against a tyrannical government.

It’s not about “states rights,” not about the establishment of a “state militia,” and it’s not about duck hunting.

It’s about the people’s right to hold the government in check though the mechanism of armed defense.

Comment by G. Alan Bergerson — November 20, 2007 @ 11:51 pm

Here's another interpretation that's well worth a slow thoughtful read. Hopefully this line of thought comes into the SCOTUS case arguments http://www.godseesyo...ed_militia.html

#42 Buzzard

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,881 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 23 November 2007 - 01:59 PM

Fred Thompson on Supreme Court decision to hear D.C. Gun Ban case

Link:

http://www.buckeyefi...rticle4059.html

By Fred Thompson
Republican Candidate for President

Here's another reason why it's important that we appoint judges who use the Constitution as more than a set of suggestions.

Today [Tuesday, November 20], the Supreme Court decided to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

Six plaintiffs from Washington, D.C. challenged the provisions of the D.C. Code that prohibited them from owning or carrying a handgun. They argued that the rules were an unconstitutional abridgment of their Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, provides, "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."

The District argued, as many gun-control advocates do, that these words only guarantee a collective "right" to bear arms while serving the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected this approach and instead adopted an "individual rights" view of the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit is far from alone. The Fifth Circuit and many leading legal scholars, including the self-acknowledged liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, have also come to adopt such an individual rights view.

I've always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says - it guarantees a citizen the right to "keep and bear" firearms, and that's why I've been supportive of efforts to have the D.C. law overturned.

In general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.

The D.C. handgun ban, like all handgun bans is necessarily ineffectual. It takes the guns that would be used for self protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing practically nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to use to commit crimes. Even the federal judges in the D.C. case knew about the flourishing black market for guns in our nation's capital that leaves the criminals armed and the law-abiding defenseless. This is unacceptable.

The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one's self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation." This view, reflected in the Second Amendment, promotes both self-defense and liberty. It is not surprising then that the generation that had thrown off the yoke of British tyranny less than a decade earlier included the Second Amendment in the Constitution and meant for it to enable the people to protect themselves and their liberties.

You can't always predict what the Supreme Court will do, but in the case of Heller and Washington, D.C.'s gun ban, officials in the District of Columbia would have been better off expending their efforts and resources in pursuit of those who commit crimes against innocent people rather than in seeking to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who would use them only to protect themselves and their families. And that is why appointing judges who apply the text of the Constitution and not their own policy preferences is so important.

Former Senator Fred Thompson is a leading Republican candidate for President.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes,
but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda,
they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." — Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

#43 Ol'Coach

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,520 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 23 November 2007 - 03:20 PM

I respect any candidate that makes his opinion known on this issue...wheter I agree with it or not!

And I do agree with Mr. Thompson!

Now, we need to hear from the rest of the candidates so that we might be allowed the priviledge of comparison! Stand up and be counted, candidates!

Anyone who thinks gun rights is not a major issue next election....WAKE UP!!!

Folks like you and me are fed up, and not just talking with a loud voice....we're yellin' at the top of our lungs!!!

If ya haven't been heard yet, yell a little louder!
"He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount."
...Chinese proverb

#44 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 23 November 2007 - 04:57 PM

Yes, we need to know, and hear the candidates. They need to give direct and detailed answers and not dodge the question or offer vague answers. Even Hillary has said she supports the right to keep and bear arms!!

And, then, we must hold these people to task for what they have said versus what they might do.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#45 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 10,859 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 23 November 2007 - 06:53 PM

Yes, we need to know, and hear the candidates. They need to give direct and detailed answers and not dodge the question or offer vague answers. Even Hillary has said she supports the right to keep and bear arms!!

And, then, we must hold these people to task for what they have said versus what they might do.



This is just one more issue where I don't trust Hillary. At this point I think she will say or do anything to get what she thinks is her birthright. If she is elected, I intend to bury my most of my pieces of history in waterproof containers someplace she'd never find.

Paranoid? Me? Maybe. or maybe just realistic.

Did I believe Blowhardovich when he said before tha last election that gun owners have nothing to fear from him?

Not on your life.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#46 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,151 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 24 November 2007 - 11:16 AM

Here is you opportunity to put a small amount of your money where your mouth is.

http://academicsseco...t.blogspot.com/

a little more of an explnation of what they are doing from another site.

http://www.thehighro...ad.php?t=317942

I know some people don't like paypal, but I suspect you could send them a check too.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#47 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 24 November 2007 - 03:30 PM

Here is you opportunity to put a small amount of your money where your mouth is.

http://academicsseco...t.blogspot.com/

a little more of an explnation of what they are doing from another site.

http://www.thehighro...ad.php?t=317942

I know some people don't like paypal, but I suspect you could send them a check too.



I sent them a check. These guys are the Real McCoy, and will submit an excellent amicus brief that will nicely outline the history of the ratification as it pertains to the language and meaning of the 2A.

I encourage everyone here interested in the outcome of this case to consider a donation.

Remember...we have to offset that damned Joyce Foundation...
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#48 oneshot

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,715 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 07

Posted 26 November 2007 - 05:00 PM

Now, we need to hear from the rest of the candidates so that we might be allowed the priviledge of comparison! Stand up and be counted, candidates!


Ron Paul Introduces Bill: Restore the Second Amendment Act (2003)

What other representative do you know has authored and introduced a bill so outwardly Pro 2A? Ron Paul doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk! Actively introducing legislation to take back ground that has slowly but surely been given up by weak willed politicians! :thumbsup: He doesn't veil his semantics with compromise terms such as sporting use, he says plainly that Americans buy guns to protect themselves and their families, he says the things that you only otherwise hear in forums such as this that "The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny." (Ref)

RP on DC Circuit Ruling, March 2007

In FACT, before it was a court case working it's way to the top of the legal system for consideration, before the issue had any traction or popularity amongst legislators or aspiring presidential candidates, Ron Paul introduced a bill to restore gun rights to the residents of Washington D.C. back in 2004! (HR 3193)

Ron Paul doesn't just give sound bites on current topics in the headlines, he has been throwing political correctness to the wind and FIGHTING for us for years!

His other speeches/writings/actions on 2A

Ron Paul Library: Second Amendment

Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave. - Andrew Fletcher 1698


#49 tplane37

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 07

Posted 13 December 2007 - 03:02 PM

Here's a must read. U.S. Department of Justice Report on whether the Second Amendment pertains to which of three interpretations.

(1)

Under the “individual right” view, the Second Amendment secures to individuals a personal right to keep and to bear arms, whether or not they are members of any militia or engaged in military service or training. According to this view, individuals may bring claims or raise challenges based on a violation of their rights under the Second Amendment just as they do to vindicate individual rights secured by other provisions of the Bill of Rights.


(2)

Under the “collective right” view, the Second Amendment is a federalism provision that provides to States a prerogative to establish and maintain armed and organized militia units akin to the National Guard, and only States may assert this prerogative.


(3)

Finally, there is a range of intermediate views according to which the Amendment secures a right only to select persons to keep and bear arms in connection with their service in an organized state militia such as the National Guard. Under one typical formulation, individuals may keep arms only if they are “members of a functioning, organized state militia” and the State has not provided the necessary arms, and they may bear arms only “while and as a part of actively participating in” that militia’s activities.3 In essence, such a view would allow a private cause of action (or defense) to some persons to vindicate a State’s power to establish and maintain an armed and organized militia such as the National Guard.4 We therefore label this group of intermediate positions the “quasi-collective right” view.


It's 107 pages long, so there is plenty of reading. I haven't finished reading it yet, but I already like the numerous excellent points that have been made. Very well written. Enjoy.
I gave an oath when I enlisted in the United States Navy,

"...to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Though I may no longer be enlisted, and no longer have an obligation to the U.S. Navy, I still have a moral obligation to my country, my freedom, and the protection of my family.

I will stand by that oath for as long as I live.

Freedom's not free, the day we quit fighting for it is the day we will loose it.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Author: unknown

"The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity -- unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity." -Henry Clay

#50 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 13 December 2007 - 03:27 PM

tplane, that indeed is a great read. I recommend it to anyone interested in the 2A and the Heller case.

There have been some rumors that the current AG, Mukasey, holds the same position as Ashcroft did, and that he might file an amicus curiae (from the US Attorney General's office) on behalf of Heller.

That would be a very important brief, indeed!
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#51 tplane37

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 07

Posted 13 December 2007 - 03:32 PM

This right here says it all, everything else is just supporting evidence! :thumbsup:

Setting aside the Second Amendment, not once does the Constitution confer a “right” on any governmental entity, state or federal. Nor does it confer any "right"ť restricted to persons in governmental service, such as members of an organized military unit. In addition to its various references to a "right of the people"ť discussed below, the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment secures "right[s]"ť to an accused person, and in the Seventh secures a person's "right"ť to a jury trial in civil cases.38 By contrast, governments, whether state or federal, have in the Constitution only "powers" or "authority."ť39 It would be a marked anomaly if "right"ť in the Second Amendment departed from such uniform usage throughout the Constitution.


I gave an oath when I enlisted in the United States Navy,

"...to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Though I may no longer be enlisted, and no longer have an obligation to the U.S. Navy, I still have a moral obligation to my country, my freedom, and the protection of my family.

I will stand by that oath for as long as I live.

Freedom's not free, the day we quit fighting for it is the day we will loose it.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Author: unknown

"The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity -- unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity." -Henry Clay

#52 ishmo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,603 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 05

Posted 13 December 2007 - 04:20 PM

tplane, that indeed is a great read. I recommend it to anyone interested in the 2A and the Heller case.

There have been some rumors that the current AG, Mukasey, holds the same position as Ashcroft did, and that he might file an amicus curiae (from the US Attorney General's office) on behalf of Heller.

That would be a very important brief, indeed!

You're right about the amicus brief from the AG. I've done a lot of reading on this case and have seen on numerous sites that the SCOTUS usually consults with the AG on the government's position on a hot button issue like this.

I haven't been able to find anything definitive that would indicate Mukasey thinks like Ashcroft. I do recall though that the SCOTUS put off a decision to hear the case until after Mukasey was sworn in and I think that may be to our advantage.

#53 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 13 December 2007 - 04:25 PM

tplane, that indeed is a great read. I recommend it to anyone interested in the 2A and the Heller case.

There have been some rumors that the current AG, Mukasey, holds the same position as Ashcroft did, and that he might file an amicus curiae (from the US Attorney General's office) on behalf of Heller.

That would be a very important brief, indeed!

You're right about the amicus brief from the AG. I've done a lot of reading on this case and have seen on numerous sites that the SCOTUS usually consults with the AG on the government's position on a hot button issue like this.

I haven't been able to find anything definitive that would indicate Mukasey thinks like Ashcroft. I do recall though that the SCOTUS put off a decision to hear the case until after Mukasey was sworn in and I think that may be to our advantage.


There is still a lot of air to clear regarding Mukasey's formal position....

But David Codrea puts together some of the (admitedly little) information here: http://waronguns.blo...nt-secures.html
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#54 tplane37

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 07

Posted 13 December 2007 - 10:07 PM

One thing that was borught up tonight after the board meeting is that I may recieve questions regarding the comparison of the DC/SCOTUS case vs. the Pro 2A Res regarding any impacts it might have. My response was that a favorable ruling for the individual rights to keep and bear arms will not neccessarily have an imediate impact on the laws that are already on the books, and that those laws will have to be defeated one by one in the courts or through movements to repeal laws through legislation. Also, they are going to want updates when I speak in January. One question that was asked was "When will the case be heard" My answer was possibly in the first half of 2008. I told them I would do more research and try to bring them up to date at the committee meeting if asked. So, with that said, has the hearing date been narrowed down any yet? Do we have a time frame that's narrowed beyong "between January and July of 2008?" It's crunch time, I found out most of what I am going to need for the Committee meeting, so it's time to set up answers to the questions I am going to be asked. :thumbsup:
I gave an oath when I enlisted in the United States Navy,

"...to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Though I may no longer be enlisted, and no longer have an obligation to the U.S. Navy, I still have a moral obligation to my country, my freedom, and the protection of my family.

I will stand by that oath for as long as I live.

Freedom's not free, the day we quit fighting for it is the day we will loose it.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Author: unknown

"The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity -- unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity." -Henry Clay

#55 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,297 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 13 December 2007 - 11:08 PM

One thing that was borught up tonight after the board meeting is that I may recieve questions regarding the comparison of the DC/SCOTUS case vs. the Pro 2A Res regarding any impacts it might have. My response was that a favorable ruling for the individual rights to keep and bear arms will not neccessarily have an imediate impact on the laws that are already on the books, and that those laws will have to be defeated one by one in the courts or through movements to repeal laws through legislation. Also, they are going to want updates when I speak in January. One question that was asked was "When will the case be heard" My answer was possibly in the first half of 2008. I told them I would do more research and try to bring them up to date at the committee meeting if asked. So, with that said, has the hearing date been narrowed down any yet? Do we have a time frame that's narrowed beyong "between January and July of 2008?" It's crunch time, I found out most of what I am going to need for the Committee meeting, so it's time to set up answers to the questions I am going to be asked. :thumbsup:


Oral arguments are thought to be slated to start on March 17th.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#56 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 14 December 2007 - 06:41 AM

It's crunch time, I found out most of what I am going to need for the Committee meeting, so it's time to set up answers to the questions I am going to be asked.


Ask away.

:thumbsup:
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#57 tplane37

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 07

Posted 14 December 2007 - 07:31 AM

One thing that was borught up tonight after the board meeting is that I may recieve questions regarding the comparison of the DC/SCOTUS case vs. the Pro 2A Res regarding any impacts it might have. My response was that a favorable ruling for the individual rights to keep and bear arms will not neccessarily have an imediate impact on the laws that are already on the books, and that those laws will have to be defeated one by one in the courts or through movements to repeal laws through legislation. Also, they are going to want updates when I speak in January. One question that was asked was "When will the case be heard" My answer was possibly in the first half of 2008. I told them I would do more research and try to bring them up to date at the committee meeting if asked. So, with that said, has the hearing date been narrowed down any yet? Do we have a time frame that's narrowed beyong "between January and July of 2008?" It's crunch time, I found out most of what I am going to need for the Committee meeting, so it's time to set up answers to the questions I am going to be asked. :thumbsup:


Oral arguments are thought to be slated to start on March 17th.


Thanks DW, I'll write that down to take with me.

GF, or anyone else...What are the likely impacts for an "Individial RIght" result for SCOTUS? Collective Right? "Qusi-collective (as defined by the USDJ)?
I gave an oath when I enlisted in the United States Navy,

"...to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Though I may no longer be enlisted, and no longer have an obligation to the U.S. Navy, I still have a moral obligation to my country, my freedom, and the protection of my family.

I will stand by that oath for as long as I live.

Freedom's not free, the day we quit fighting for it is the day we will loose it.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Author: unknown

"The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity -- unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity." -Henry Clay

#58 Ashdump

    Member

  • Moderator
  • 4,646 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 04

Posted 14 December 2007 - 10:44 AM

tplane, you may want to also ask them that regardless of the SCOTUS ruling, what would be the problem of passing the resolution anyway? I don't even understand why it is a concern to them. It certainly won't hurt anything no matter the SCOTUS decision.

#59 tplane37

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 07

Posted 14 December 2007 - 11:38 PM

tplane, you may want to also ask them that regardless of the SCOTUS ruling, what would be the problem of passing the resolution anyway? I don't even understand why it is a concern to them. It certainly won't hurt anything no matter the SCOTUS decision.

From what I gathered from conversation, they are just wanting to see how involved and how serious I am about supporting the Constitution and my opinions. You have to remember, I am young and not as well seasoned as most of you, or the board members. It has been brought to their attention that I am concerned with other issues in Illinois as well as the Second Amendment, so they are looking to see how much detail and effort I am willing to put forward to stand up for my beliefs. Because they have managed to get the impression that I will be speaking in front of them on other topics in the future.

Here in Macon County as well as other areas near by, we are typically a proud people. We like to know what we are talking about before we go into an arguement, and we want the other guy/gal to be knowledgable when they arrive to defend their possition...thus resulting in a productive conversation regardless of the outcome. I think that it is mainly because of me being in my mid 20's (and hints to this end from other board members I have spoken with), that I am expecting the members of the board to dig a little deeper for their own knowledge and for the purpose of finding out just "who" I am. Not to worry, I take no offense to this added challenge, I welcome it. It just tells me that I have made enough of an impression on the members of the board that they are willing to take additoinal time to listen to what I have to say. I accept the challenge with honor, and I have no intentions of making this first formal impression a waste of their time by showing up unprepared. You see, most of us around here don't take well to Bullsh!t, and since I was brought up in the same respect, I understand where they are coming from.

So far, I have counted 12 members of 18 that have said they will vote "AYE" it was mentioned that maybe 2-3 will vote "NYE," and one or two of those that may vote against will base their vote on my presentation. (i.e. a good presentation="AYE," a poor, uneducated presentation with a lack of heart="NYE" with those two.)

But not to worry, I don't go into a battle of whits unarmed!
I gave an oath when I enlisted in the United States Navy,

"...to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Though I may no longer be enlisted, and no longer have an obligation to the U.S. Navy, I still have a moral obligation to my country, my freedom, and the protection of my family.

I will stand by that oath for as long as I live.

Freedom's not free, the day we quit fighting for it is the day we will loose it.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Author: unknown

"The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity -- unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity." -Henry Clay

#60 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 15 December 2007 - 08:56 AM

Tplane:

I strongly recommend telling them that you are interested in the second amendment. If you are indeed interested in presenting other issues, you'd best to that at another time. Keep the focus of these meetings very narrow. Be one-minded at each meeting. If need be, just use verbiage such as "my purpose at this meeting today is to discuss second amendment rights and gun control issues in Illinois, and specifically, how this county views the issues at play."

Don't fall for anyone's ploy to distract you....don't let them ask you about the constitution and gay rights, for example, or abortion, or taxation, or any number of other admittedly important issues....they are tangential, because those issues are not under discussion. The second amendment is the issue for why you are there. It might be that those in favor of gun control in general will try to distract you to other issues you are less familiar with, in the hopes that you will bumble around and appear uninformed. Demand that focus remain on the 2A...when you have the floor, you are in charge. And when someone else takes the floor and asks you a question about the tangential issue, you say "we are here to discuss second amendment rights and gun control issues in Illinois, and specifically, how this county views the issues at play. Discussion of other topics are counterproductive toward resolving the issue at hand."
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872