When the Supreme Court rules in our favor....what's our next step?

This is a discussion on When the Supreme Court rules in our favor....what's our next step? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; What's next?...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: When the Supreme Court rules in our favor....what's our next step?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array hudsonvalley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    lower hudson valley ny
    Posts
    849

    When the Supreme Court rules in our favor....what's our next step?

    What's next?
    Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
    ---Ronald Reagan

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 35,670'
    Posts
    11,561
    I won't suggest anything until the SCOTUS decision is digested thoroughly. Anything else is premature.

    I would be looking at political actions, however. Campaign for Pro-2A candidates, etc.
    Richard

    NRA Life Member

    "But if they don't exist, how can a man see them?"

    "You may think I'm pompous, but actually I'm pedantic... let me explain the difference."

    "Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything."

  4. #3
    Member Array Bonesnofoa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    201
    fully auto weapons! X)

  5. #4
    AMH
    AMH is offline
    Member Array AMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    I won't suggest anything until the SCOTUS decision is digested thoroughly. Anything else is premature.

    I would be looking at political actions, however. Campaign for Pro-2A candidates, etc.
    +1
    Also, "reasonable restrictions" need to be tested and challenged.
    Join the NRA!
    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about keeping the government in check. This requires that the citizenry is well armed and at all times has immediate access to arms.

  6. #5
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by AMH View Post
    +1
    Also, "reasonable restrictions" need to be tested and challenged.
    Do you think mentally retarded people should be allowed to keep and bear arms? Do you think an eight year old should be allowed to keep and bear arms?

    Do you think incarcerated criminals should be allowed to keep and bear arms?

    Do you think that there are reasonable restrictions that might be applied to the natural right to keep and bear arms?

  7. #6
    AMH
    AMH is offline
    Member Array AMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    317
    I meant that the existing restrictions are unreasonable. We should challenge them and get rid of them. That’s what I meant. I should have been clearer. Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Do you think mentally retarded people should be allowed to keep and bear arms?
    I work in the mental health field and regularly see mentally retarded patients. “Borderline Intellectual Functioning” is the legal and billable diagnoses. But to answer your question: yes, depending on their level of functioning. “Retarded” is not the same as “Crazy”. The mentally challenged have just has much of a God given right to self defense as you or I have.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Do you think an eight year old should be allowed to keep and bear arms?
    Yes, when supervised by a competent adult. When the boys and I go camping the kids carry arms in camp. They are closely supervised and well educated.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Do you think incarcerated criminals should be allowed to keep and bear arms?
    No. Criminals are incarcerated after due process. Positive control of a confinement facility is not possible when the inmates are armed. Felons, after release, should be allowed to keep and bear arms depending on the nature of their crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Do you think that there are reasonable restrictions that might be applied to the natural right to keep and bear arms?
    Very few. IMHO most current restrictions are unreasonable. People who are of the Antisocial Personality type and have proven (proven through individual due process) themselves to be habitually violent should not be allowed.
    Join the NRA!
    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about keeping the government in check. This requires that the citizenry is well armed and at all times has immediate access to arms.

  8. #7
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by AMH View Post
    I meant that the existing restrictions are unreasonable. We should challenge them and get rid of them. That’s what I meant. I should have been clearer. Sorry.
    We should convince our fellow citizens to pass legislation that conforms with our natural rights and protects society.

    I work in the mental health field and regularly see mentally retarded patients. “Borderline Intellectual Functioning” is the legal and billable diagnoses. But to answer your question: yes, depending on their level of functioning. “Retarded” is not the same as “Crazy”. The mentally challenged have just has much of a God given right to self defense as you or I have.
    I picture arming the ward in "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest."

    Yes, when supervised by a competent adult. When the boys and I go camping the kids carry arms in camp. They are closely supervised and well educated.
    So you think this is a reasonable restriction.

    No. Criminals are incarcerated after due process. Positive control of a confinement facility is not possible when the inmates are armed.
    So, this too, is a reasonable restriction.

    Very few. IMHO most current restrictions are unreasonable. People who are of the Antisocial Personality type and have proven (proven through individual due process) themselves to be habitually violent should not be allowed.
    So you agree that some restrictions on the right to bear arms are reasonable. My point is exactly that. And it is not the responsibility of the Court to determine what those restrictions should be. It is the responsibility and mandate of the people.

    The reason that Heller should prevail is solely because DC is not a state and the Federal government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

  9. #8
    Member Array RJ Stewart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    47
    When the Supreme Court rules in our favor....what's our next step?

    I'm not holding my breath.
    Robert John Stewart, The Lost King of Scotland

  10. #9
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonesnofoa View Post
    fully auto weapons! X)
    That's what I was thinking, but didn't want to say it. It's still going to take a lot more than we may suspect. Pray the Good Lord sends divine guidance upon the Supreme Court as He did unto the hands of the men that wrote the constitution in the first place. I hope to not offend anyone with my religious intonations, but everyone needs to realize that God and this nation go hand-in-hand. Pray.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array Ragin Cajun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    809
    Quote Originally Posted by Ram Rod View Post
    Pray the Good Lord sends divine guidance upon the Supreme Court as He did unto the hands of the men that wrote the constitution in the first place. I hope to not offend anyone with my religious intonations, but everyone needs to realize that God and this nation go hand-in-hand. Pray.
    Amen brother!

  12. #11
    Member Array firestarplus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    western south dakota
    Posts
    167
    Perfectly stated Ram Rod!!!

  13. #12
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    I think the best way to go is to take political action to get "shall issue" in all 50 states and have full reciprocity between the states. I wouldn't try to push for open carry of rpg's yet......
    But that being said,the DC case is only going to be ruling on individual rights to possess and to a lesser degree on what can be possessed(handgun,rifle). The decision will probably be narrow and will tell DC to re-write the law(or go back to whatever the law was pre-1976). So if I'm not mistaken, handguns are legal on private property but must be registered?
    Other than a few of the big cities, I believe all states allow handguns on private property,correct?
    I would see this as a minor victory(unless the court goes beyond and says carry should also be legal everywhere), nothing as far as gaining much on the carry front.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array Pitmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wherever there's fried chicken or barbecue
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Do you think mentally retarded people should be allowed to keep and bear arms? Do you think an eight year old should be allowed to keep and bear arms?
    Sounds like Brady hysteria running amok.


    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Do you think incarcerated criminals should be allowed to keep and bear arms?
    Not while incarcerated. After completing their sentences, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Do you think that there are reasonable restrictions that might be applied to the natural right to keep and bear arms?
    As a general statement NO. But to remove that right it should be done via a court. It should not be a rubber stamp issue. I would go so far to say that it should be a jury trial vs. a judge.


    I think its important to remember that not everyone wants to have a gun. If gun laws were removed and became more normal within society these silly "scenarios" and "what ifs" would become moot.
    Pitmaster

    HELGA: Where are you going?
    HAGAR: To sign a peace treaty with the King of England.
    HELGA: Then why take all those weapons?
    HAGAR: First we gotta negotiate...

  15. #14
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense View Post
    Do you think mentally retarded people should be allowed to keep and bear arms? Do you think an eight year old should be allowed to keep and bear arms?

    With the right training an and in controlled environments depending on a level of functioning. Retardation and age is not a disease. I think this question bears merit. Are you now picking and choosing who the second amendment right should be extended to?

    Do you think incarcerated criminals should be allowed to keep and bear arms?

    Not while in jail. When time serves and the courts deam no social threat, why not. If the courts deam the mass murders do not get to CCW, I'm OK with that. Oh wait, criminals will carry anyway. I think this question sound like Hillary's campaign manager.
    Are you now picking and choosing who the second amendment right should be extended to?

    Do you think that there are reasonable restrictions that might be applied to the natural right to keep and bear arms?
    I really don't think reasonable can be define at this point until a complete ruling is made. I think anything that restricts the sale of ammo and firearms that reduce or restrict the right of law abiding citizens to protect Home, family and health is unreasonable. This includes CCW.Are you now picking and choosing who the second amendment right should be extended to?

    Self Defense, why so defensive? If the ruling is in our favor it is only to insured the rights afforded by the 2nd admendment to the people, by the people and put an end to the gun ban of areas like DC and continued ares in Illinois and California. I'm sure there is more places and will be future attempts to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. There will probably be more legal rangling in the future if we do or do not get a favorable ruling. Current laws now are suppose to protect society from those who do not demonstrate the ability to live in a structured society. Do you now think that a favorable ruling will wipe the slate clean and everyone will be humping an M60 because everyone will have the right to do what they want. I get the feeling you are looking for responses here and you already understand your question about prisoners being armed is simply thought provoking. I've added my two cents and see no further need to address unreasonable.Are you now picking and choosing who the second amendment right should be extended to?
    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

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array hudsonvalley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    lower hudson valley ny
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    I think the best way to go is to take political action to get "shall issue" in all 50 states and have full reciprocity between the states. I wouldn't try to push for open carry of rpg's yet......
    A license to drive crosses the borders.....why not something that had to go through the Feds. as well as local to get issued?
    Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
    ---Ronald Reagan

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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. San Diego Court Rules Against Concealed Carry - NRA to Appeal to 9th Circuit Court
    By LanceORYGUN in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: January 6th, 2011, 11:44 PM
  2. Supreme Court and 2A
    By JoJoGunn in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2010, 01:13 AM
  3. One for the good guys! Cities can't ban guns from parks, Ohio Supreme Court rules
    By Divebum47 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 19th, 2008, 12:59 PM
  4. US Supreme Court Over Rules Bush and The World Court (Merged)
    By Sig 210 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: March 28th, 2008, 08:56 PM