Top US court to rule on gun case

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Depth_Charge, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. casualmadness

    casualmadness Man About Town

    Dec 15, 2005
    The gun ban got over turned. Now it isn't just the criminals with guns in DC. Hooray! :hyper:
    I am glad to see how it went down.
  2. It's about time the SCOTUS got one right.
  3. well, they're shooting 50% over the last two days... at least from my perspective. What'd they do with the campaign finance law? I can't find anything yet. I saw that Alito wrote the opinion, so I'm assuming they overturned at least part of it.
  4. Phalex

    Phalex Semper Gumby Supporting Member

    Oct 3, 2006
    G.R. MI
    It's a sad day when the SCOTUS decides 5-4 that U.S. citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I think I recall hearing something about that sometime around 3rd or 4th grade. Tough call, I'm glad they somehow managed to come to a decision on that one. Now, if they can only get rid of those darned Christians, Jews, and Muslims...........
  5. +1. I could go on about my opinions of judges who attempt to legislate from the bench, but I don't want to get political.
  6. I'd join you, but then we'd both get a 14 day ban... :)
  7. Now watch the crime rates drop!!! Woot Woot!!! 780_machine_gun_shooting.gif
  8. casualmadness

    casualmadness Man About Town

    Dec 15, 2005
    Thats just what I was thinking. Hell, it might even be safe to stroll around SE after a few weeks.
  9. Street thugs don't understand reason, most have no concience, they understand fear and that's about all they understand :)
  10. Anyone up for a well-regulated militia? :bag:
  11. True dat. And the SCOTUS just gave a whole city-load of them the *right* to own a gun in a city which can barely enforce the laws they've got on the books.
  12. Kelly Lee

    Kelly Lee Yeah, I'm a guy! Supporting Member

    Feb 17, 2004
    Marana, AZ, USA
  13. thumpbass1


    Jul 4, 2004
    When they do get rid of all the religous folks that impede the evolution of the state towards it's rightful place as a god, then the state can finally come after everybody else.:rolleyes:
  14. I really doubt the law will make a difference to the street thugs. You need a valid ID, pass a background check, actually pay money for the gun then wait out the "cooling off" period. After all that, they need to remove the serial numbers and alter the rifling so it can't be tracked back to them. It's much easier to get a gun the way they do now :)
  15. If the District of Columbia were not an almost 100% urban environment this ruling would maybe make sense. However, as someone who works in DC I see a few 'unintended consequences' of this decision as it now stands:

    (1) There are a lot of Federal buildings here (I work in one). I don't expect many of them are going to want guns on the premises no matter how well regulated the gun owners are. Anyway, it appears the security guards who staff these buildings have just had their job become a little bit more difficult, and many of the ones I've dealt with already seem to be working at the peak of their difficulty level. In the coming years I'll expect the lunchtime line of tourists waiting to be cleared through the Reagan Building to get a LOT longer.

    (2) The rules you speak of for registering a handgun aren't even in place yet. And even if they well can you trust the same people who license DC vehicles and issue DC driver's licenses and regulate DC housing and run DC schools to properly register your DC handguns? (You'll get some candid opinions from DC residents on that one, I'm sure.)

    (3) Why would the plaintiff in such a landmark case insist on being addressed as 'Dick'? :D
  16. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Supporting Member

    I have to say that the ruling makes sense to me, especially after scanning the reasoning in the .pdf file linked above.

    And I believe this is the first time the Supreme Court has ever agreed to rule on a case involving the Second Amendment, so this is a big-time ruling.
  17. Okay, now's where it gets a little political. The Supreme Court's job is not to rule on the "sense" of the law, nor even on the morality of the law, but STRICTLY the constitutionality of the law. Though they've been doing it for 50 years the Supreme Court doesn't get to rewrite laws or cancel out ammendments that don't make sense or don't jive with modernist thinking. Their constitutionally granted authority ONLY lies in determining the constitutionality of the law. Based strictly on the constitution (and you have to read the Federalist Papers to really understand the constitution), this was the only way this case could have been ruled, only it should have been 9-0. Now, if they would just use that standard to revisit about 4000 decisions since the Marshall era, we'd be all set.

  18. +6.022 x 10[SUP]23[/SUP]
  19. burk48237

    burk48237 Supporting Member

    Nov 22, 2004
    Oak Park, MI
    You mean like keeping Senators from packing in the Capital office building.:D

    Not True, The basic purchasing rules for clearing a handgun purchase are already in place with the insta-check policy. Every gun legal purchaser has to go thru a background check. D.C. Does not have handgun registration programs in place, but their is no law saying they have to, most states don't have handgun registration.

    To me the scary thing about this ruling is that four justices appointed to the US Supreme Court said, what the Constitution says doesn't matter. What about "the right to keep and bear arms" is ambiguous? The fact that any justice to the Supreme Court could be this far out of the mainstream and convinced that the law doesn't matter over personal fiat is revolting.