Guns getting their day in court - Machine Underground -Tractor & Commercial Equipment Discussion Forum

Mickey · 03-16-2008, 04:43 PM

The Supremes are scheduled to hear the D.C. case over the ban on hand guns this coming week. This has all the potential to become a major case for the country.

Wonder if there is a way to either see or read the arguments pertaining to the case?

D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court

**Ducati996** · 03-16-2008, 05:35 PM

It would be nice to go back in time where it would be ok to have a hand gun...especially when everything is in the crapper these days, it would be nice to go back....I know I must have been hit in the head and still dreaming....love to see it overturned

**gunmaker** · 03-16-2008, 06:14 PM

The Supreme Court released a statement that it would release the video tapes of the procedings almost immediately. The public should have access later in this same day, if things go as they've suggested.

Dougster · 03-16-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunmaker

The Supreme Court released a statement that it would release the video tapes of the procedings almost immediately. The public should have access later in this same day, if things go as they've suggested.

I suspect you are gonna see a very narrow ruling pertaining to the DC law only. I'm betting they don't have the guts to make history with a broader ruling on the Second Amendment one way or the other.

Dougster

**PaulChristenson** · 03-16-2008, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducati996

It would be nice to go back in time where it would be ok to have a hand gun...especially when everything is in the crapper these days, it would be nice to go back....I know I must have been hit in the head and still dreaming....love to see it overturned

We already have that here in Vermont...Legal to Carry State...

**Ducati996** · 03-16-2008, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulChristenson

We already have that here in Vermont...Legal to Carry State...

I know, I know they have it in New Hampshire as well, my second home

Mickey · 03-17-2008, 02:39 PM

Personal gun ownership is written stronger in our state constitution than in the Fed. Concealed carry has been around for a long time.

IMO, this case is an important one for all of the country. We need to know if the Consitution mean what it says or not. Persionally I'm in the original intent camp. I think with the current makeup of the court there is a good chance to have a very clear on topic ruling.

Here are some comments from our founding fathers on gun ownership.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

Dougster · 03-17-2008, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey

IMO, this case is an important one for all of the country. We need to know if the Consitution mean what it says or not. Persionally I'm in the original intent camp. I think with the current makeup of the court there is a good chance to have a very clear on topic ruling.

I hear you Mickey... but do you really expect any court that includes the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to follow original intent or look out in any way for your rights?

I think I'd sooner trust that idiot Hugo Chavez on our supreme court. Even he is far closer to rational centrist thinking than crazy old Ruth!

Dougster

Mickey · 03-17-2008, 07:14 PM

Well, I did read something earlier today where Justice Ginsburg did side with a decision some yrs back saying "bear arms" had a wider meaning than just military use. We can hope!

I'm hoping we'll be able to see and or read something about the argument tomorrow. The court has already granted a longer time for presenting arguments than normal. Normal time allotment is 1 hr and they added and additional 15 mins. Sure would like to be able to read the full transcript of the arguments presented on both sides.

SkunkWerX · 03-17-2008, 10:34 PM

What I have heard recently is that we will see a ruling as it pertains to "possession" (ie; ownership) , and it's realtionship to defending ones self and home.

But, even just that helps shore up the Rights of all, in that a locality, city or state will never again be able to infringe someones ownership/possession.

Then, there could come a house-of-cards affect, since the next question will be the actual definition of "Possess" , as an interpestation of the framers and founding fathers.

The framers were no dummies, if they had intended muskets be locked up, in someone's closet, and not brought in public, lest there be civil unrest or war, they would have written it that way!

What is "bearing arms"? I think carrying it down the street is bearing an arm. Leaving it at home as other belongings is possessing.

The framers felt the right to possess (bear) arms was an even greater a right than that granted by the Bill of Rights, they were merely stating it, again, and using the militia as one example. They spoke of it as being pre-ordained. Akin to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I'll never understand modern folks misinterpretation of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

It appears pretty much absolute to me.

The 2nd amendament is the one right that insures the others will not be encumbered.