Originally Posted By dshyates The U.S. Supreme Court has stuck down the 34 year old hand gun ban in Washington, D.C. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/...dex.html</a>
Originally Posted By X-san Wow, the Supremes have been busy little bees lately haven't they? Some I agree with, some I do not. But at least they are DOING something. Nice.
Originally Posted By dshyates They had to throw a bone to the conservitives after the Gitmo ruling. Seriously, though, if I lived in D.C., I'd want a gun. And a big dog to protect the place while I was at work.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection. In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban. Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood. "In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog. "What more am I supposed to do?" Parker recalled asking authorities. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' " >>> Whew.... although I am very confident that our town would never ban handguns, still this is a big sigh of relief to me personally. For me it has nothing to do with political party, I personally believe in the 2nd Amendment applying to individuals.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. >>> WOW!
Originally Posted By DVC_dad lol It states that only Chicago IL has a similar ban. I wonder if SPP or some of you lawyerly types could comment. Does this ruling sort of by default mean that Chicago's ban is also unconstitutional? How does that work now?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Well funny you should ask. You know that he has recently taken some heat from the McCain camp for saying that particularly small town America clings to their guns and religion out of bitterness...and ofcourse with gun control what it is in Chicago he almost has to be very anti-2nd amendment. However, McCain has sort of picked at Obama on this issue and says (and I really do believe this) "I know why residents of small towns embrace their constitutional rights, and why they embrace their religious beliefs, it's because they are fundmentally good and decent people." So no its not about assassination in real terms, but perhaps politically it does hurt Obama a little to be so anti-gun now that the Supreme Court has more or less given a pass to the word "and" being missing from the 2nd amendment. Huh? Well what I mean is this. The 2nd 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.">>> If only the amendment had included the word "and" such that it read "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be... there would be no room for interpretation. Now in my mind the question of does the 2nd apply to the state or to the individual. It now applies to BOTH. DC's ban is down. Chicago's is next. This isn't a "I can now stick my tongue out at you" post. I am quite certain that my town and state would never ban guns. But this ruling has just been a LONG time coming, 32 years in fact.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Of course you have to consider that my opinion is based on having been raised in the deep south around family and friends that own many various types of guns. We grew up hunting and so forth and having guns around was just never a big deal. I think carrying a gun in a urban metro area is quite a different thing, and I don't really know if that's good or bad, probably bad, but sadly you can't allow Billy Bob Redneck to carry a pistol between the seats in his truck while he is riding around in Jerkwater, and then put him in jail when he gets stopped for a traffic ticket the one time in ten years he has to "go to the big city" and the cop sees it there.
Originally Posted By X-san I would argue that the 2nd amendment is being misinterpreted here. It is, in fact, written in such a way as to state that the PEOPLE have a right to weapons of any kind in order to fight AGAINST a well armed militia (such as the U.S. military for example, should the need arise). The word "and" wouldn't work to the end the framers intended. Remember, these people were ANTI-government, and they wrote the document for the explicit purpose of rejecting any governments (backed by well armed militias) in favor of handing the power to the people. Think about it.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Hummm... makes sense X-san. I like your version even better! Let's go with that.
Originally Posted By dshyates Barak Obama's response to the ruling: "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country. As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe." Wow DVD_cad, it sounds like your post #11, but Obama left out the Jerkwater part due to political expediancy.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Yeah, has he flipped or flopped? I see he is changing his tune a wee bit after the ruling. He is sitting the fence even with THIS statement. Hey, that's the sign of a good politician right?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't think saying one has a right to bear arms, but certain common-sense restrictions can apply, is sitting on the fence. It's where I and a lot of Americans are on this. It's not unlike having freedom of speech, but recognizing certain common-sense restrictions like the famous "no shouting fire in a crowded theatre" thing.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It states that only Chicago IL has a similar ban. I wonder if SPP or some of you lawyerly types could comment. Does this ruling sort of by default mean that Chicago's ban is also unconstitutional? How does that work now?" I haven't read the ruling, but just based upon what I've read here, which is some sort of caveat, I'd say it does, but I'd be surprised if Chicago voluntarily withdraws it.
Originally Posted By dshyates I haven't actually heard Obama say anything negitive about gun ownership rights, just the one comment about people sticking to their guns and religion. But that isn't an attack on gun ownership.
