Challenge of what the Justices Did Not Decide. - The Firearms Forum

Tracker · 06-28-2008, 02:22 PM

I, for one, was really happy about the Supreme Court's decision regarding "Heller vs DC". For once---the Anti-Gun crowd has taken a hit, in their claim that the 2nd Amendment wording "Right of The People", does not in fact mean "The People--Citizens--Just Me and You". The Supreme Court has determined otherwise. Not only was this a "Blackeye" for the Anti-Gun crowd, but also a reason of celebration for the Pro-Gun crowd, and indeed, alot of us did celebrate! However--Let's look at this "Victory" very carfully!

The Justices determined that the wording, did indeed refer to the people, giving the people the "Right to keep and bear arms". A more in depth reading of the decision, clarifies the true judgement of the Justices.

1. "...violate the Second Amendment Right of individuals..."
THE COURT RULED TODAY THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, AND THE BAN VIOLATED IT.
2. "...who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia..."
THE COURT RULED TODAY THAT MILITIA STATUS IS IMMATERIAL.
3. "...handguns and other firearms..."
THE COURT RULED TODAY THAT HANDGUNS ARE INCLUDED, THOUGH SOME ROOM WAS LEFT FOR VERY NARROW TYPES OF GUN BANS
4. "...for private use in their homes."
THE RULING TODAY WAS LIMITED TO “IN THE HOME” AS THAT WAS ALL THAT WAS IN FRONT OF THE COURT

This is definitly a victory in our quest for the True wording of the Second Amendment---But the True Battle has just started. San Francisco and Chicago are the first targets of the NRA and Pro-Gun groups. The decision of the Supreme Court will be the focal point of these lawsuits, and you can be certain, that the lawyers for these cities will have one thing on their mind---The Supreme Court ruling Did Not eliminate the power of the States to pass "Reasonable" laws to protect their citizens. What is "Reasonable"? That makes a good question for a Second "Supreme Court Decision".

The fact is--There will be numerous "Reasonable" laws passed, ( Or shall we say Reasonable Infringements ), by numerous Cities and States, using the LOOPHOLE, that the Supreme Court Ruling has provided ( See Numbers--3 and 4 ). This is the upcoming battle, Not a challenge of the Justices decision----a Challenge of what the Justices Did Not Decide.

"We The People"

Xracer · 06-29-2008, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tracker

The fact is--There will be numerous "Reasonable" laws passed, ( Or shall we say Reasonable Infringements ), by numerous Cities and States, using the LOOPHOLE, that the Supreme Court Ruling has provided

And, indeed, there's nothing in the Heller decision that even applies it to the States.

That will be the next obstacle to be overcome in the upcoming suits against the Chicago handgun prohibition.

armedandsafe · 06-29-2008, 10:27 AM

The Court decided the question before them. Indeed, the Court framed the question based on the case in question. Had the case been different, the question would have been different.

"I want to leagally have a gun in my home for self defense."
"Fine, you will have to have a license, first."
"OK, give me a license."
"No, we, won't give you a license."
.
.
.
"OK, I'll go over your head."

Pops

06-28-2008, 02:22 PM	#1
Tracker V.I.P. Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Lake County Ohio Posts: 202	Challenge of what the Justices Did Not Decide. I, for one, was really happy about the Supreme Court's decision regarding "Heller vs DC". For once---the Anti-Gun crowd has taken a hit, in their claim that the 2nd Amendment wording "Right of The People", does not in fact mean "The People--Citizens--Just Me and You". The Supreme Court has determined otherwise. Not only was this a "Blackeye" for the Anti-Gun crowd, but also a reason of celebration for the Pro-Gun crowd, and indeed, alot of us did celebrate! However--Let's look at this "Victory" very carfully! The Justices determined that the wording, did indeed refer to the people, giving the people the "Right to keep and bear arms". A more in depth reading of the decision, clarifies the true judgement of the Justices. 1. "...violate the Second Amendment Right of individuals..." THE COURT RULED TODAY THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, AND THE BAN VIOLATED IT. 2. "...who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia..." THE COURT RULED TODAY THAT MILITIA STATUS IS IMMATERIAL. 3. "...handguns and other firearms..." THE COURT RULED TODAY THAT HANDGUNS ARE INCLUDED, THOUGH SOME ROOM WAS LEFT FOR VERY NARROW TYPES OF GUN BANS 4. "...for private use in their homes." THE RULING TODAY WAS LIMITED TO “IN THE HOME” AS THAT WAS ALL THAT WAS IN FRONT OF THE COURT This is definitly a victory in our quest for the True wording of the Second Amendment---But the True Battle has just started. San Francisco and Chicago are the first targets of the NRA and Pro-Gun groups. The decision of the Supreme Court will be the focal point of these lawsuits, and you can be certain, that the lawyers for these cities will have one thing on their mind---The Supreme Court ruling Did Not eliminate the power of the States to pass "Reasonable" laws to protect their citizens. What is "Reasonable"? That makes a good question for a Second "Supreme Court Decision". The fact is--There will be numerous "Reasonable" laws passed, ( Or shall we say Reasonable Infringements ), by numerous Cities and States, using the LOOPHOLE, that the Supreme Court Ruling has provided ( See Numbers--3 and 4 ). This is the upcoming battle, Not a challenge of the Justices decision----a Challenge of what the Justices Did Not Decide. "We The People" __________________ "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." -- Ronald Reagan "We The People" "The Pro Gun Blog" -->

06-29-2008, 10:27 AM	#3
armedandsafe Former Guest Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Moses Lake, WA Posts: 10,344	Re: Challenge of what the Justices Did Not Decide. The Court decided the question before them. Indeed, the Court framed the question based on the case in question. Had the case been different, the question would have been different. "I want to leagally have a gun in my home for self defense." "Fine, you will have to have a license, first." "OK, give me a license." "No, we, won't give you a license." . . . "OK, I'll go over your head." Pops