Sportbike World banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,324 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well, it isn't over yet, but so far, the Supreme Court is clobbering the Anti-gun people!
That is a great thing!

I am hoping that it continues.
We will have to see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,324 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Justices agree on right to own guns

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.

Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.

The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.

Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia.

Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia's 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution.

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

Walter Dellinger, representing the district, replied that Washington residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at home.

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous," Dellinger said.

Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials.

Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked.

Alan Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged ban, said, "It's unreasonable and it fails any standard of review."

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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 basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — a majority of the nine-member court.

Gun rights proponents were encouraged.

"What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and unconstitutional," National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said after leaving the court.

Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he hoped the court would leave the ban in place and not vote for a compromise that would, for example, allow handguns in homes but not in public places. "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban," the mayor said after attending the arguments.

A decision that defines the amendment's meaning would be significant by itself. But the court also has to decide whether Washington's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws.

The justices have many options, including upholding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should say that governments may impose reasonable restrictions, including federal laws that ban certain types of weapons.

Clement wants the justices to order the appeals court to re-evaluate the Washington law. He did not take a position on it.

This issue has caused division within the administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the official position at the court.

In addition to the handgun ban, Washington also has a trigger lock requirement for other guns that raised some concerns Tuesday.

"When you hear somebody crawling in your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?" Justice Antonin Scalia said.

Roberts, who has two young children, suggested at one point that trigger locks might be reasonable.

"There is always a risk that the children will get up and grab the firearm and use it for some purpose other than what the Second Amendment was designed to protect," he said.

On the other hand, he, too, wondered about the practical effect of removing a lock in an emergency. "So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses," Roberts said to laughter.

Dellinger said he opened the lock in three seconds, although he conceded that was in daylight.

While the arguments raged inside, dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorists buy guns."

Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,324 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Now we just have to wait until the middle of July for the results from the Court.

I hope they crush the anti-gun people.
We will have to wait and see.

It would be great if this would quickly lead to MI becoming a Class III state!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,890 Posts
Uh, ok, Maine gets machine guns too!

What the heck!
Everybody gets machine guns!

Well, if it were in my power. :)

I am writing you in for president this year. :D


While you are at it, how about doing something about this asinine tax and background check on Suppressors.

Automobiles are required to have mufflers. Any other loud machinery is required to have some sort of sound deadening, so a law preventing firearms from doing the same is just pathetically retarded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,324 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I have no problem with silencers.
As you say, it would be kind of nice to be able to leave a range and, even with good sound protection, not have to worry about your hearing.

The French have allowed silencers for years so that people who shot in their backyards did not upset the neighborhood with the noise. (I am not sure if the French still allow this)

Sounds good to me.

Accept the nomination!

If nothing else, selling a whole lot of new machine guns to those legally allowed to own them would help out the economy. It costs a ton to shot alot of ammo out of a machine gun!

Even cheap 9mm (ave $15 for 100 Winchester White Box) ball ammo can get expensive in a hurry!

A 2 second burst and there goes $5!

In the larger calibers, 308 and so on, it is really costly!

Move up to 50 cal and each round is about $5! (including tax and shipping) A 100 round, belt-fed 50 would cost about $500 to shoot.
And, you have to swap out the barrel on the 50's about every 450 rounds. So, mo money, mo money, mo money!!! Great for the economy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,890 Posts
I have no problem with silencers.
As you say, it would be kind of nice to be able to leave a range and, even with good sound protection, not have to worry about your hearing.

The French have allowed silencers for years so that people who shot in their backyards did not upset the neighborhood with the noise. (I am not sure if the French still allow this)

Sounds good to me.

Accept the nomination!

If nothing else, selling a whole lot of new machine guns to those legally allowed to own them would help out the economy. It costs a ton to shot alot of ammo out of a machine gun!

Even cheap 9mm (ave $15 for 100 Winchester White Box) ball ammo can get expensive in a hurry!

A 2 second burst and there goes $5!

In the larger calibers, 308 and so on, it is really costly!

Move up to 50 cal and each round is about $5! (including tax and shipping) A 100 round, belt-fed 50 would cost about $500 to shoot.
And, you have to swap out the barrel on the 50's about every 450 rounds. So, mo money, mo money, mo money!!! Great for the economy!
Yes, the french still allow suppressors. A lot of European countries encourage it, and the majority of the shooting ranges in those countries actually require them.


If machine guns became available again, I would just want a 22LR Machine gun. $50 bucks could be made to stretch at least an hour. :)

My main interest in the legalization of Class III firearms are full auto rifles. The AR15/M16, to be more specific. I would LOVE to be able to buy a DIAS for my AR. I mean... without forking over $17,000 for one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,324 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
It would be great if "they" would let us all be able to buy new instead of R&C full auto's as we are limited in MI.

Several nice rifles would be coming my way then, I think.

Not to mention the H&K MK23 fully rigged! Still, $10,000 for that kit is kind of nutty.

If only!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,890 Posts
Full Autos are legal here... it just costs WAY too much to buy them, then there is the 6 month wait on the background check, the $200 tax stamp (which is chump change compared to the price of FA weapons), and the LEO sign-off.

We just need the FA ban lifted so the manufacturers can start selling to the public again. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,324 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Mi is one of the states that can only buy from the R&C pool, if you will. The latest figure that was published stated that there were only about 200,000 FA weapons that everyone could buy from. SO, the prices are very high, when they need not be if the Gov did as you suggested and just let us all participate!

A friend has 2 Uzi's. One we shoot, one just sits and goes up in value. The both cost around $6k to buy.

An R&C Thompson 45 for us is in the neighborhood of $50K-$60K. Kind of silly for that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,998 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,324 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
What kind of Gestapo kind of crap is that?
I certainly hope the Jewish people in the area start a big ruckus over this! Sounds very similar to 1930's Germany.

However, very few of the people who run this country actually reside in DC. Most of them live just around the corner in VA.

You have to remember how large DC is. It isn't large at all. Just a few square miles.

And, remember that the people who are running this country in DC do not have to worry about guns and crime as they are allowed to have licenses to carry guns as well as many of them have protection teams.

It is only the unimportant, little people (all of us who are not important political people) who cannot have them.
All the politicians can own and carry them in DC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,324 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Chris, maybe you should send that to the ACLU and see what they have to say?

Of course, I am sure they would be super against it, if you changed the word "guns" to "Drugs".

For guns, they probably will say it is ok!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,288 Posts
When I can carry two p90's and a m107, I'll be happy to carry.:)
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top