Two SCOTUS decisions the antis don't want us to see . . .

Two SCOTUS decisions the antis don't want us to see . . .

This is a discussion on Two SCOTUS decisions the antis don't want us to see . . . within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; "TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE Carl F. Worden January 15, 2013 There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: Two SCOTUS decisions the antis don't want us to see . . .

  1. #1
    Member Array Frogman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    167

    Two SCOTUS decisions the antis don't want us to see . . .

    "TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE

    Carl F. Worden

    January 15, 2013

    There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

    The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

    The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.

    Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

    The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

    I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.

    Carl F. Worden"


  2. #2
    Member Array zxd9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    165
    The AR/AK issue I can see working in our favor. The 2nd item, I don't think that would go over so well.
    Member: GeorgiaCarry.Org

  3. #3
    Ex Member Array hartlathers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Beloit, WI
    Posts
    107
    You have to be careful when making statements. I read the supreme court's decision concering the Bad Elk case. Bad Elk didn't fire his weapon until the arresting officers had pulled their weapons. Since their task of arresting Bad Elk, who was also a policeman, was without a written warrent, the SC ruled basically that Bad Elk acted in self defense. This is a much different way of looking at this issue than the simplistic and misleading statements by Carl F. Worden.

  4. #4
    Member Array rutcrazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    282
    Very interesting!!! Love your EDC. Probably one of my favorites in my collection...

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by hartlathers View Post
    You have to be careful when making statements. I read the supreme court's decision concering the Bad Elk case. Bad Elk didn't fire his weapon until the arresting officers had pulled their weapons. Since their task of arresting Bad Elk, who was also a policeman, was without a written warrent, the SC ruled basically that Bad Elk acted in self defense. This is a much different way of looking at this issue than the simplistic and misleading statements by Carl F. Worden.
    That extra clarification is important.

    And during a gun confiscation, while a person may be in the right, I can pretty much assure that open fire against an officer will result in a strong volly of return fire.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  6. #6
    Member Array mardet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    54
    Here's another one. Warren vs DC. The Supreme Court ruled that the police have no constitutional duty to protect individuals. Basically police are reactive not proactive. Your defense is your responsibility. If the police get there to late to help you or if they are to buzy with other calls. they cannot be held responsible. It's not their fault that you're dead, raped, robbed or whatever. Yet the libs want our guns. We see that calling 911 is not always a good answer to a problem.
    "There are only 2 things we should fight for. One is the defense of our home and the other is the Bill of Rights".

    Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC

  7. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,721
    I think the first ruling on the shotgun could be stood on its head easily, and work out against us, especially now that
    the Supremes have separated gun owner rights from militia rights. As an individual right v something tied to the need to have
    military application, I could see the rules getting changed. I can also see the argument getting turned
    that since the AR styles have no FA capability they don't have military uses and therefore are not protected.

    No one ever can predict how a case that gets to the Supremes will end up. The issues are much more complicated
    than any of us care to acknowledge and the Supremes tend as a matter of interpretive principle to give great weight
    to what legislatures do-- except when they don't.
    Last edited by Hopyard; January 21st, 2013 at 06:03 PM. Reason: word "to" added before word "give"
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  8. #8
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,877
    What Mr. Worden doesn't take into account, is the anti's will argue the AR15 and semi auto AK rifles do not classify as military weapons, since they are semi-automatic and not select fire. It doesn't matter to them that they call them "military style" weapons when they want to ban them, and non-military style weapons when it suits their purpose.
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,902
    Those decisons have been cherry-picked to present the view one wishes. Read the entire SCOTUS decision before making a rash, and perhaps erroneous, decision.
    Hopyard likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  10. #10
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I can also see the argument getting turned
    that since the AR styles have no FA capability they don't have military uses and therefore are not protected.
    With the exception of full-auto mode, they are functionally the same as the military version, therefore useful in maintaining training and skillls useful by the citizen soldiers. Don't forget, our military was once reduced to training with wooden guns.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,407
    If one or two Supreme Court Justices retire in the next 4 years, we're screwed.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  12. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,721
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    With the exception of full-auto mode, they are functionally the same as the military version, therefore useful in maintaining training and skillls useful by the citizen soldiers. Don't forget, our military was once reduced to training with wooden guns.
    Well let's hope wooden guns isn't where we end up.

    Seriously, the downside to the suggestion by the OP is that the Supremes could say, sure, an FA AR is fine, but what
    you all own isn't; and Congress can come along and raise the tax from 200 bucks to 100,000. Game over.

    As I wrote, there's no guessing how they will come down on any given issue. There have been good rulings, awful rulings,
    great rulings, mediocre rulings, ruling that meant nothing to daily life and rulings that have affected everything
    we do. ALL had two sides at least or they wouldn't have gotten to a hearing before The Supremes.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array sixgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    indiana usa
    Posts
    2,563
    Well if they do come and try to take them. there will probably be bullets flying somewhere.

  14. #14
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,902
    Quote Originally Posted by BugDude View Post
    If one or two Supreme Court Justices retire in the next 4 years, we're screwed.
    I don't pay much attention to who's who on the court, but I read a while back the most likely ones to retire were liberals, and most likely to be replaced by liberals, negating and shift in opinions.
    Crowbait likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  15. #15
    VIP Member
    Array goawayfarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fork Union, Virginia
    Posts
    2,697
    Four years is a LLLLLOOOOONNNNNGGGGGG TIME!

    Justice AGE Appointed by
    Antonin Scalia 76 yr 10 mo Ronald Reagan 9/26/1986
    Anthony Kennedy 76 yr 5 mo Ronald Reagan 2/18/1988
    Clarence Thomas 64 yr 6 mo George H. W. Bush 10/23/1991
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg 79 yr 10 mo Bill Clinton 8/19/1993
    Stephen Breyer 74 yr 5 mo Bill Clinton 8/3/1994
    John G. Roberts 57 yr 11 mo George W. Bush 9/29/2005
    Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 62 yr 9 mo George W. Bush 1/31/2006
    Sonia Sotomayor 58 yr 6 mo Barack Obama 8/8/2009
    Elena Kagan 52 yr 8 mo Barack Obama 8/7/2010

    I could see 2 to 4 being replaced in the next few years.............
    Hopyard likes this.
    Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca

    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith

    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

bad elk decision

,
by carl f. worden - january 15, 2013
,
carl f worden supreme court
,

carl f. worden jan 15 2013

,
carls f. worden january 2013
,
court decisions the don't want you to see
,
court decisions the liberals don't want you to see
,
scotus decision
,
scotus decision 2013 about concealed carry supreme court
,
scotus decision on killing police officer trying to arrest without cause or warrant.
,

supremes retiring united states supreme court

,
the bad elk decision
,
there are two supreme court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-assault weapon issue everyone needs to be r
,
two supreme court decisions the anti-gunners don't want you to see carl f. worden
,
two supreme court decisions the anti-gunners don't want you to see carl f. worden
Click on a term to search for related topics.