Challenge of what the Justices Did Not Decide.

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Tracker, Jun 28, 2008.

  1. Tracker

    Tracker New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    202
    Location:
    Lake County Ohio
    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"
  2. Xracer

    Xracer *TFF Admin Staff Mediator*

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,141
    Location:
    Minn-eeee-sota, ya, sure, you bet!
    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.
  3. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    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
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Was Clinton's AWB and background check challenged in courts? Apr 10, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Can the new NY gun laws get challenged? Jan 17, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Can a presidential executive order be challenged in the courts? Dec 17, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Legal Question: Is this the way to challenge the NFA? Feb 22, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum UC Davis CCW challenge Jan 24, 2009