Any lawyers out there to help with a question

Any lawyers out there to help with a question

This is a discussion on Any lawyers out there to help with a question within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I have read a lot of people are in fear of losing there right to own firearms under the Obama administration. I have also seen ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    New Member Array fitz777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    10

    Any lawyers out there to help with a question

    I have read a lot of people are in fear of losing there right to own firearms under the Obama administration. I have also seen the way gun store stocks are depleted from what they were six months ago due to this fear. But really what can the government do ? This has already been ruled on in the Supreme Court in Heller vs. DC.

    Justice Scalia wrote...
    "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

    So according to a ruling by the Supreme Court handgun banning is unconstitutional.
    Mark

    Para Warthog .45
    Glock Mod. 27 .40


  2. #2
    Distinguished Member Array Guardian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wichita Falls, Texas
    Posts
    1,618
    That's the bad thing about laws and rulings my friend. They can be changed.
    "I dislike death, however, there are some things I dislike more than death. Therefore, there are times when I will not avoid danger" Mencius"

  3. #3
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by fitz777 View Post
    I have read a lot of people are in fear of losing there right to own firearms under the Obama administration. I have also seen the way gun store stocks are depleted from what they were six months ago due to this fear. But really what can the government do ? This has already been ruled on in the Supreme Court in Heller vs. DC.

    Justice Scalia wrote...
    "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

    So according to a ruling by the Supreme Court handgun banning is unconstitutional.
    I'm not a lawyer, but Heller wasn't all good. The decision left open all sorts of gun control measures that even Scalia didn't seem to have a problem with. Even the quote you used says, "...in the home..." which could be interpreted by an idiot COUGHHelmkeMcCarthyFeinsteinCOUGH to limit firearms to the home. It also leaves open "reasonable" limitations on magazine capacity, caliber, and on and on.

    Heller says we have the right. But it doesn't say much about what those rights are.

  4. #4
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,779
    It depends on what the definition of "is" is...
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  6. #6
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by fitz777 View Post
    So according to a ruling by the Supreme Court handgun banning is unconstitutional.
    No. According to the US Constitution, such banning is illegal. If the Supreme Court ruled contrary to the words of the US Constitution, whose authority is greater? (That should be an easy one...)


    Quote Originally Posted by Guardian View Post
    That's the bad thing about laws and rulings my friend. They can be changed.
    Which is exactly why this decision isn't the Supreme Court's to make.


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

  7. #7
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    No. According to the US Constitution, such banning is illegal. If the Supreme Court ruled contrary to the words of the US Constitution, whose authority is greater? (That should be an easy one...)
    It should be an easy one but many people think the Supreme Court trumps the Constitution. Rather the Court can make up any 'interpretation' they like (until the next batch takes over) and that is the final word.

    Which is exactly why this decision isn't the Supreme Court's to make.
    That is the absolute truth.

  8. #8
    Distinguished Member Array sniper58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,631
    The people in power at this time are wiping their behinds with the Constitution. 1A, 2A, 4A, 10A and 13A are under attack. We, as a country, are in "crisis mode." As such, we should never let a good crisis go to waste and if we don't have a crisis, we'll manufacture one!
    Tim
    BE PREPARED - Noah didn't build the Ark when it was raining!
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    ________
    NRA Life Member

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    It's all the backdoor stuff, they'll never directly come out and say "we want your guns". It'll be in the form of ammo tax, environmental regulations, exc.
    "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

  10. #10
    Member Array user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Va. & Middle of Nowhere, W.Va.
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    It should be an easy one but many people think the Supreme Court trumps the Constitution. Rather the Court can make up any 'interpretation' they like (until the next batch takes over) and that is the final word.



    That is the absolute truth.
    That's what the decision in Marbury v. Madison held, and it's why it's held up as a leading seminal case in U.S. history in the public schools. Then, when the United States invaded Virginia and South Carolina, the issue was one of federal power under the Constitution - who gets to decide what constitutes "property"? But the United States won, and now occupies the Constitution by right of conquest. That was over a hundred years ago. Since then, FDR, Kennedy and Clinton and the Bushes have acted to cement federal power. (The reactionaries and the socialists are all in the same boat in my opinion.)

    I think there's still time to take the Constitution back for "We the People" who created it, and by extension, created the municipal corporation we call the United States, and to do it peacefully by the vote.

    But look at the neighbors on either side of you, and ask yourself if that's a realistic option.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    Nothing I say as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Legal questions should be presented to a competent attorney licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  11. #11
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    You keep saying the United States owns the Constitution by right of conquest, but I have never once seen anything to back that up. Would you care to humor me/us? Explain why the US Constitution is no longer a binding document on the US government, as decreed by the People?


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

  12. #12
    Member Array Colt 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    50
    There is another way that the government can take/limit your Second Amendment rights. It is with international treaty. The CIFTA treaty currently being entertained after sitting around for years is one example. Obama has backed off the AWB (for now) and is pushing for the Senate to pass this treaty.

    Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms (CIFTA)

    Max

  13. #13
    Member Array XDFender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shawnee, Kansas
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by Colt 45 View Post
    There is another way that the government can take/limit your Second Amendment rights. It is with international treaty. The CIFTA treaty currently being entertained after sitting around for years is one example. Obama has backed off the AWB (for now) and is pushing for the Senate to pass this treaty.

    Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms (CIFTA)

    Max

    There are two "realities" at issue here: There is practical/factual reality--often referred to as de facto; and there is legal reality--referred to as de jure.

    As a legal fact--i.e., de jure--a treaty cannot trump the Constitution any more than a statute can trump the Constitution.

    However, as a practical fact, the federal and state governments have regularly violated the Constitution by enacting laws and implementing treaties that are contrary to the Constitution--in particular the protections established by the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, including as those rights are made applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment as the 9th Circuit correctly recognized recently.

    Thus, for example, we have the practical or de facto reality that we are prohibited from freely owning and carrying arms, without any restriction by the federal government--instead, the federal and states governments have established various restrictions, limitations, licensing requirements, etc. infringing on our RKBA. These are all de jure unconstitutional as any semi-intelligent and relatively educated/informed person who reads the 2nd Amendment and has a proper and informed understanding of the BOR and 14th Amendment can tell you. But they are still de facto the "law" as it is enforced, and if you violate those restrictions, limitations, requirements, etc., you stand a good chance of going to jail and losing even more rights.

    That is why there is a good number of us that are struggling hard, through the legal system, to bring into effect what is the correct de jure law, by getting the de facto, but unconstitutional, laws thrown out.

    But it's a mighty struggle, because we for too long have been complacent and allowed government at all levels to usurp more and more authority away from us as individual, sovereign persons, to whom the rights belong.

  14. #14
    VIP Member
    Array ppkheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,130
    Quote Originally Posted by fitz777 View Post
    I have read a lot of people are in fear of losing there right to own firearms under the Obama administration. I have also seen the way gun store stocks are depleted from what they were six months ago due to this fear. But really what can the government do ? This has already been ruled on in the Supreme Court in Heller vs. DC.

    Justice Scalia wrote...
    "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

    So according to a ruling by the Supreme Court handgun banning is unconstitutional.
    You have a right to be concerned. Sure there are rumors and misinformation and I think you are trying to filter through some of that by using this thread.

    Maybe an attorney will step forward and give you a legitimate post to help answer your question.
    Turn the election's in 2014 to a "2A Revolution". It will serve as a 1994 refresher not to "infringe" on our Second Amendment. We know who they are now.........SEND 'EM HOME. Our success in this will be proportional to how hard we work to make it happen.

  15. #15
    Member Array XDFender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shawnee, Kansas
    Posts
    249
    Okay--with my attorney hat on now... (But do not construe this as legal advice or services):

    The quoted statement from Heller means only that the 2nd Amendment establishes a prohibition against "certain" (to use the Court's term) restrictions on the ownership and possession of arms. Among those "certain" prohibited restrictions is an "absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

    Let's break that down: What the Court said was that the 2A prohibits:

    (1) An absolute prohibition (begging the question of the constitutionality of a more limited prohibition);

    (2) Of handguns held and used:

    (A) For self-defense; and
    (B) In the home.

    So, the only thing that this particular sentence from the decision clearly said was that a (1) total prohibition on having and using a (2) handgun for (3) self-defense (4) in the home is unconstitutional. It said nothing about having/using a handgun for any purpose other than self-defense. It said nothing about having/using a handgun for any purpose at all (even self-defense) outside the home. And, it also did not say that a more limited prohibition on having/using handguns, even for self-defense and within the home, would necessarily be unconstitutional.

    Again--the foregoing applies only to this single sentence in the decision. The decision's impact and full import is much broader.

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. Lawyers and NRA
    By jkvan87 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2012, 06:01 PM
  2. Any lawyers out there? Legal question
    By SARR001 in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: June 25th, 2011, 08:25 AM
  3. Lawyers
    By ZRT600 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: January 18th, 2010, 10:48 PM
  4. Non-carry question for you lawyers
    By ExactlyMyPoint in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 11th, 2008, 09:34 PM
  5. Lawyers
    By TC_FLA in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 5th, 2007, 08:13 PM

Search tags for this page

how long before para warthog broken in

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors