Well, they did it... DC Asks SCOTUS to take Parker

This is a discussion on Well, they did it... DC Asks SCOTUS to take Parker within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by jeephipwr Dont they realize that unarmed citizens are dying every day? I hope all goes well with the Supreme Court. Oh yeah, ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Well, they did it... DC Asks SCOTUS to take Parker

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,210
    Quote Originally Posted by jeephipwr View Post
    Dont they realize that unarmed citizens are dying every day? I hope all goes well with the Supreme Court.
    Oh yeah, they realize it. The difference though, is that they think an object in someone's hand determines how their mind works.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Member Array airbornerangerboogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    478
    "...historic decision next year on whether the ambiguously worded Second Amendment to the Constitution "

    What pray-tell is ambiguous about the wording of the 2nd amendment?

    If I follow the logic...
    • Evil humans do harm to others and the way to stop them from harming the innocent is to disarm the innocent.
    • They have also stated that the police are not responsible for our protection.
    • The thought process (term used loosely) is that if I own a gun I will either attempt to use it on myself, my family, or hand it to my kids to play with, or become a rabid killer.


    Pray for this nation please
    “Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today.” James Dean
    Phil (NRA Member and Vietnam Vet)
    ------------- My CCW ----------------
    No Guns Here Boss
    I gave them to the naked Pigmy's in New Guinea

  4. #18
    Member Array Deacon51's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    238
    I think the court could go 3 ways... I note them, best case to worst.

    Best, case would be the SC rules that the lower court was spot on. This would have the effect of not only overturning the DC ban, but other bans in other states, yet leave the NFA untouched, and wile maybe overthrowing CA's AWB and DC's pistol ban, it would allow the state to restrict these weapons.

    Next best case is that the SC rules that the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Goverment, and that the States may pass what ever laws they see fit to “regulate” there local militia.

    This wouldn’t be to bad in the states that have there own constitutional support for firearms at the state level, but would destroy the Pro-Gun movement in Maryland, and I think it's probably going to be the way the case goes.

    My worst fear is that the SC will rule that a handgun ban (like a Sawed off shotgun ban, or assault rifle ban) is a ‘Reasonable Restriction’. This would be very bad. It would give the Goverment the ability to ban everything more advanced than a flint lock, and still claim the RTKBA isn't infringed.

    The good news is that I don’t even think Breyer and Ginsburg would go with the the idea that when the founders wrote “the people” they really meant “the States”.

  5. #19
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    I think you're missing couple options:

    1. The Court declines to take the case, without citing a reason, or

    2. The Court takes up the case, but issues a ruling so narrowly constructed as to leave the larger questions of the 2A un-addressed.

    Matt
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,210
    Quote Originally Posted by bandit383 View Post
    "The petition also includes a long list of statistics it says bolsters its claims that the availability of handguns increases the number of suicides and endangers children and police officers. "No other provision of the Bill of Rights even arguably requires a government to tolerate serious physical harm on anything like the scale of the devastation worked by handguns," it states"

    Having a hard time connecting the dots...handguns increase the number of suicides??? Endangers children and police officers??? I can think of a hundred other reasons for suicide increases and dangers to children/police.

    Rick
    I guess they forgot to look at the suicide rate in japan WITHOUT guns huh? Bet they left that part out...like the teen suicide pacts...jumping from buildings, OD's, etc...

    edit:
    we should ban all rooftops...and all medications.
    Last edited by packinnova; September 5th, 2007 at 08:28 AM. Reason: edit
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  7. #21
    Member Array 1911packer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon51 View Post
    I think the court could go 3 ways... I note them, best case to worst.

    Best, case would be the SC rules that the lower court was spot on. This would have the effect of not only overturning the DC ban, but other bans in other states, yet leave the NFA untouched, and wile maybe overthrowing CA's AWB and DC's pistol ban, it would allow the state to restrict these weapons.

    Next best case is that the SC rules that the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Goverment, and that the States may pass what ever laws they see fit to “regulate” there local militia.

    This wouldn’t be to bad in the states that have there own constitutional support for firearms at the state level, but would destroy the Pro-Gun movement in Maryland, and I think it's probably going to be the way the case goes.

    My worst fear is that the SC will rule that a handgun ban (like a Sawed off shotgun ban, or assault rifle ban) is a ‘Reasonable Restriction’. This would be very bad. It would give the Goverment the ability to ban everything more advanced than a flint lock, and still claim the RTKBA isn't infringed.

    The good news is that I don’t even think Breyer and Ginsburg would go with the the idea that when the founders wrote “the people” they really meant “the States”.
    Or, they could decline to hear the case. Have they already agreed to hear it?

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array BigEFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    2,045
    "drastically departs from the mainstream of American jurisprudence."
    And mainstream American jurisprudence departs so greatly from the founding fathers intentions of the Constitution, so GIVE ME A FRICKEN BREAK HERE!!!!

    ""It is eminently reasonable to permit private ownership of other types of weapons, including shotguns and rifles, but ban the easily concealed and uniquely dangerous modern handgun,""
    But their not uniquely dangerous, didn't you and your fellow commy friends use the same lame excuse for banning assault rifles. Can't you argue that shotguns are uniquely dangerous because of the number of "bullets" coming from one shot. Aren't high powered rifles uniquely dangerous because the distance at which someone could fire an accurate shot.

    The only thing unique here is your understanding of the term unique. At least make a better effort at being sincere.

    ""Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die.""
    I agree, get off your lazy rear ends and start enforcing the laws on the books. Crack down on crime. Heck why don't you go door to door conducting background checks and issuing weapons and ammo to those households that have no convicts living in them.

    No one ever asked you to sit on your duffs and let criminals run your city, you did that all on your own!!!!!

    "The only possible outcome of more handguns in the home is more violence."
    And we know this because while the ban was in effect violent crime in DC went down right? What do you mean it got worse? Maybe "criminals victims of choice" are unarmed citizens. I know the thought never entered that empty cavern between your ears.
    Maybe they should try banning idiots from elected office in DC, that would surely help the quality of life in our Nation's Capitol.

    "Our appeal will help the District of Columbia be able to continue to reduce gun violence."
    What do you mean continue? You have to start reducing gun violence before you can continue to reduce it.

    Only if and when the Supremes rule that the ban was unconstitutional will you actually be able to reduce gun violence.

    "For the residents of the District of Columbia, it's a matter of life and death."
    No argument here. If the Supremes don't stop these idiots in DC more people are going to helpless in preventing their own death.

    ""No other provision of the Bill of Rights even arguably requires a government to tolerate serious physical harm on anything like the scale of the devastation worked by handguns,""
    Oh really? Do you know how many thugs have gotten off on serious charges because their fourth amendment rights were not protected? We have had to tolerate that. All in the name of LIBERTY. Don't like living free? MOVE!!!!!!

    Lex et Libertas — Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis!

    "Not only do the people who put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us deserve better, we all deserve better than to have our own security undermined by those who undermine law enforcement." -Thomas Sowell

  9. #23
    Ex Member Array dwolsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    266
    The only possible outcome of more handguns in the home is more violence.
    I have to agree with this, and with what follows logically: the only possible outcome of ANY guns ANYWHERE is violence. Therefore, we need to ban ALL guns EVERYWHERE. That means the police and military shouldn't have guns either! That would make us into a nice, peaceful society, right? Right?

    Of course, the other root cause of violence is poverty, so we need to tax everyone and give plenty of money to people who don't want to work, so they won't have a reason to commit crimes. It works for the Mafia, after all! How often do you hear about violence between the Mafia and shopkeepers? That protection money prevents violence!

  10. #24
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611

    DUH

    And the petition says the high court should recognize that banning handguns, which it calls the criminal's "weapon of choice," was a reasonable response in an urban area marked by high crime rates.
    .
    The crime rate is high because no one can protect themselves. That statement alone should jar the obvious, Criminals don't care about laws!!!! I suspect even these betrayers of the populous know that. IT'S ALL POLITICAL AND WHO'S LINING MY POCKETS TODAY.
    .
    I hope this part make the wheels fall off.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Parker Bows?
    By farronwolf in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 21st, 2008, 10:24 PM
  2. THE MAN BEHIND PARKER-HELLER Vs. DC AT SCOTUS
    By cagueits in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 6th, 2007, 08:11 PM
  3. DC appeals Parker case to SCOTUS
    By pogostick in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: July 21st, 2007, 01:25 PM
  4. Why You Should Care About Parker v. District of Columbia
    By TonyW in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2007, 07:56 AM
  5. Parker Vs DC PDF court File
    By Rugerman in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 15th, 2007, 10:16 AM