Printable View
I was wondering something about the Heller case and that is being this case reaffirmed he 2nd amendment as an individual right,does this mean that the people who live in Washington,D.C. can now legally purchase and own a handgun for personal defense? Also whats the chance of this ruling helping the residents of Chicago to overturn that city's handgun ban?
NRA is working on a case right now in Chicago I gaurantee they will win based on the heller case.
The NRA is doing more than just what heller vs DC proved. Go read up on it. It has been posted several times.
Those that rule DC have tried every trick and manuever possible to stall, delay and obstruct the sales of firearms. It looks like Congress may have to step in.......again.
In Chicago it's basically the same thing. The NRA is taking the city to court because of their refusal to comply with the Heller Decision.
Both these battles are a clear indication of what the anti-gun movement is all about. They refuse to obey the law, even when the highest court in the country tells them to do so.
That will be decided by the Supreme Court. Yes, D.C. residents are allowed to purchase and own handguns now. But D.C. is a Federal enclave. The Constitution restricts the Federal government from infringing on our Rights. The argument before the court is going to be based on "incorporation" of the Second Amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment. If the court finds in favor of incorporation, state and local governments would also be prohibited from banning handguns. The courts may allow "reasonable restrictions" that will probably be loosely defined (if at all) so those restrictions could be created at the state and local level. If they don't find in favor of incorporation state and local governments would still be able to ban handguns.
Even if DC is halted from their illegal prohibitions, how would a resident manage to buy a new firearm?
No gun shops in DC.
And it is a violation of Federal law for A dealer in Maryland or Virginia to sell to a non-resident.
I think that the Heller case was a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court in favor of the right to own firearms for self defense. That is why so many people are concerned about Sotamayors appointment. She could be the swing vote the other way.
No, because she is replacing one of the four dissenters.Quote:
Originally Posted by wickedrider
Chicago will say that the state, city, county, or municipality may make any law it deems fit to completely ban weapons.
Regardless of what is said in 'Heller', the antis continue to believe that the 2A says that states have a right to maintain their own armies (national guard). They believe the 2A limits the Fed, not the states. Since then they believe that there is no limit upon how state, city, county, or municipality may impose 'reasonable regulation' they may reasonably say that you may not own weapons of any kind, not even in your own home. And they believe it so strongly that they are willing to take it all the way.
Then it will go to the Supreme Court, and they will make a decision as to whether the Constitution is a handbook for the Fed, or whether it is the supreme law of the land that over-rides and limits all lesser powers.
I always wonder how come they don't pull this crap with the other amendments. LOL that the Fed cannot limit free speech but the state can. That "free speech" doesn't apply to certain kinds of speech, such as political speech. That you have to get special permission to exercise free speech. What a bunch of hypocrites. Two years ago they were saying that the 2A only applies to states and therefore DC is exempt. Now that they found out that DC is not exempt, they have turned completely around and say that the 2A does not apply to states, but only to the Fed. LOL. Of course they never admit that they change their tune quicker than a politician on the campaign trail.
Yes, and we have vociferous antis here who talk out of both sides of their mouth. They claim they support gun rights, but take such a narrow antiquated view of Federal-State interaction that they OPPOSE almost anything that might enhance gun owner's rights and options; they argue against the BOR being applied to the states; they argue against national legislation that would grant recognition of licenses issued by a resident's state to recognition in all other states.Quote:
Originally Posted by lance22
They claim they are constitutional purists. They are not. They are antis in "conservative" costume, hiding behind 19th century rulings made to perpetuate Jim Crow laws.
What gets confused is what part of the BOR that applies to the states, and what applies to individuals. Liberals love to pick and choose which right applies where. Even conservative minded people do this from time to time, depending on the right in question.
For instance : To a liberal, the right to free speech is inviolate even if that free speech ruins someone's life or career and is completely untrue. The second amendment only applies to the states concerning militias and with a modern army we simply don't need our guns anymore....And on and on and on....
If you read history and what men like Jefferson intended in his writings, you read something else entirely. They all love to talk about being free and having all those rights until they get to the parts they don't like, then they change their colors on the spot. I point to Jeffersons writings concerning inalienable human rights, and chief among those are the rights to life and liberty and self defense. I have posed this question to liberals repeatedly, and they still cannot answer this logical question, do you or do you not have a right to defend yourself when attacked?
Waddya mean? There are plenty of Gun Owners in DC.
Regards
Rick
Slander and libel are not protected free speech, and even the most liberal minded judges will enforce these laws. I've no idea why you think liberals or progressives or anyone else thinks slander and libel are O.K. And there has been plenty of it here in DC with regard toQuote:
Originally Posted by edr9x23super
lies about The President not being a US citizen by birth; and several other comments. The purveyors of this stuff are fortunate that political figures can't sue to protect their names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
I got the idea that liberals think libel and slander are O.K. from watching 8 years of character assassination by the liberal media against Pres. George W. Bush.