DC vs. Heller:ALL Related Discussion: VICTORY! Merged - Page 54

pgrass101 · June 27th, 2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QKShooter

According to Scalia handguns are our preferred firearm for self-defense because we can keep the firearm pointed at the burglar while we dial 911 with our other hand.

I'd be willing to "foot the bill" for some top notch self-defense firearm/handgun training for Scalia.

I'll chip in!!!!!

InspectorGadget · June 27th, 2008, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdoggsilva

Yes it is good news. But we must still be vigilant and keep after those that would take away our RKBA. Do not think it is over, the war is still not won. I would bet the left wingers are right now trying to figure out ways, to circumvent this. So we must still watch and defeat any affort that they come up with.

This is why we must maintaing the "Right Guard against B.O."

airbornerangerboogie · June 27th, 2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldshellback

Other cities' handgun laws already being challenged - FOX30Online.com Jacksonville News Leader

CHICAGO (AP) - Gun-rights groups have already filed a lawsuit against Chicago's handgun ban -- after a similar ban in Washington, D.C. was struck down by the Supreme Court.

The National Rifle Association is planning to go to court and challenge San Francisco's ban.

The high court ruled that Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense. It's the first time the justices ever ruled on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment.

But the court also said the right to bear arms is not absolute. And the mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, says that's an "explicit statement of support" for cities that are creating "reasonable measures" targeting those who will carry weapons in order to do harm.

The San Francisco ban prevents people from carrying guns on county property -- including parks, schools and community centers. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom says he wishes the justices who rejected the D.C. ban would first "spend a week in public housing."

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley predicts that if his city's ban is overturned, there will be more violence.

I shouldn't gloat..........

"spend a week in public housing." ? Does he mean with the gangs, crack-heads, and Meth Labs or with the "citizens who have no choice, but to live next to them?

It's been a catch 22 up till now, the police are won't protect these people and the citizen had to break the law to defend themselves. Maybe now they can arm themselves and clean house.

ccman · June 27th, 2008, 03:18 PM

Clean house: 10-4 to that there Airborne.

edr9x23super · June 27th, 2008, 03:30 PM

I say send a few Texas Rangers up there to "public housing", and we won't have a problem very soon after.......

cvhoss · June 27th, 2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edr9x23super

I say send a few Texas Rangers up there to "public housing", and we won't have a problem very soon after.......

A FEW??? Only need one. 1 Riot, 1 Ranger.

Hoss

Rob P. · June 27th, 2008, 04:49 PM

Some observations:

The opinion doesn't just recognize the keeping of arms. It also explicitly says that individuals have the right to carry arms.

The opinion says that requiring the arms to be either "locked up" or "non functional" is unconstitutional.

It says that permitting processes cannot be arbitrary or capricious. However, it also says that concealed carry permits are constitutional. One can surmise that this is true so long as the process is not arbitrary or capricious.

Finally, self defense is a valid and sufficient reason for the carry of firearms.

I take all these factors together to mean that "shall issue" and "open carry" is about to happen nationwide. To require that "good cause" other than self defense be given results in arbitrary or capricious determinations in the permitting process. Given that individuals have the right to possess and carry their firearms, laws which ban that practice are unconstitutional. (laws which restrict it where/when may be OK) Laws which require the arm to be locked up or nonfunctional are unconstitutional (hence, unloaded open carry is unconstitutional since the arm is nonfunctional even if allowed to be carried).

Hopyard · June 27th, 2008, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock and Glock

Sorry........BTW, Thanks for cutting and pasting it in your post. Say, who's Gordon Liddy? Is he with Roto Rooter?

Not that it matters to his fans, he is a felon. He was one of the Watergate gang; aka "The Plumbers."

Served several years in the big house for his role.

In some circles that equals hero. Go figure.

In any case, you really need to be about 50 years old or more to really have lived through the events and have any recollection.

He is exhibit 1 for what happens when a president and his henchmen decide they are above the law.

Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Liberal, a Naderite; a conservative Libertarian, a criminal is a criminal and should not be made into a hero.

Hopyard · June 27th, 2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob P.

Some observations:

The opinion doesn't just recognize the keeping of arms. It also explicitly says that individuals have the right to carry arms.

.

I found the emphasis on the right to keep arms, and little attention to the word "bear," peculiar. The ruling did seems to sanction "bear" but didn't address it much.

Maybe they were trying to deal with one can of worms at a time.

SelfDefense · June 27th, 2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Not that it matters to his fans, he is a felon. He was one of the Watergate gang; aka "The Plumbers."

Served several years in the big house for his role.

In some circles that equals hero. Go figure.

I'm not sure what circles he is considered a hero. Can you elaborate? Yes, he was guilty and was convicted. He served his time for his non violent crime. Now he is a radio personality and a pundit.

Quote:

In any case, you really need to be about 50 years old or more to really have lived through the events and have any recollection.

I lived through the event and thought it was no big deal then and even less so now. Political chicanery is nothing new and goes back in our history to Jefferson defaming Adams to win the presidency in 1800.

What happened was virtually a non event except for a couple of liberal reporters, who would endanger the nation to fulfill their adolescent aspirations. It didn't matter to them whose careers they ruined to make a name for themselves. It is Woodward and Bernstein who should have gone to the 'big house.'

Quote:

He is exhibit 1 for what happens when a president and his henchmen decide they are above the law.

No, it is merely a footnote. When a president commits perjury, sells national secrets to an enemy for campaign contributions, when the borders remain open despite a grave threat, that is Exhibit 1. Nixon's crime was not Watergate. It was not the coverup. Nixon's crime was wage and price controls.

Quote:

Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Liberal, a Naderite; a conservative Libertarian, a criminal is a criminal and should not be made into a hero.

Liddy a hero?

June 27th, 2008, 03:30 PM	#535
edr9x23super Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 971	I say send a few Texas Rangers up there to "public housing", and we won't have a problem very soon after....... __________________ "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

June 27th, 2008, 03:18 PM	#534
ccman Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: CT,USA. Posts: 574	Clean house: 10-4 to that there Airborne.

June 27th, 2008, 04:49 PM	#537
Rob P. Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: In the sticks Posts: 139	Some observations: The opinion doesn't just recognize the keeping of arms. It also explicitly says that individuals have the right to carry arms. The opinion says that requiring the arms to be either "locked up" or "non functional" is unconstitutional. It says that permitting processes cannot be arbitrary or capricious. However, it also says that concealed carry permits are constitutional. One can surmise that this is true so long as the process is not arbitrary or capricious. Finally, self defense is a valid and sufficient reason for the carry of firearms. I take all these factors together to mean that "shall issue" and "open carry" is about to happen nationwide. To require that "good cause" other than self defense be given results in arbitrary or capricious determinations in the permitting process. Given that individuals have the right to possess and carry their firearms, laws which ban that practice are unconstitutional. (laws which restrict it where/when may be OK) Laws which require the arm to be locked up or nonfunctional are unconstitutional (hence, unloaded open carry is unconstitutional since the arm is nonfunctional even if allowed to be carried).