Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on May 23, 2008, 09:40:33 AM
-
The amicus brief filed by the government to the supremes said that those who signed it believed that the second amendment was an individual right.. that it was your right to keep and bear arms... it was passed around the halls and...
52 members of congress signed it.. 250 house members signed it.. they all believe you have rights..
John McCain signed it.
hillary and osamabama did not sign it.
Think of that when they tell you how much they believe in the second amendment and your rights..
When osamabama says he only wants to keep guns out of the wrong hands.. guess what? unless you are in his army or police or one of his bodyguards while on duty... you have the wrong hands.
lazs
-
From what I've read the Amicus calls for the SC to define the 2nd as an individual right, but to also uphold the DC gun control laws.
-
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c261/Kaw1000/wrong24.jpg)
-
mt.. where did you read that? There is nothing in it at all about upholding the complete ban of firearms that DC has.
lazs
-
MT.. I think this part is the part you want to look at..
""The District's prohibitions on mere possession by law-abiding persons of handguns in the home and having usable firearms there are unreasonable."
lazs
-
hillary and osamabama did not sign it.
Ain`t that a shocker. <insert sarcasm tag here>
-
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/01/government_file_1.php
Here you go.
-
I believe that we are talking about two different things here MT.. you are talking about the DOJ brief that is simply a way to weazel out of a ruling.. It really just says that they want to send the thing back to the lower courts but.. it does say the second is an individual right.
I am talking about a brief filed by Kay Bailey Hutchinson and the house and congress.
here ya go....
http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2008/02/members_of_congress_file_brief.html
you can see that we are talking about two different things.
none of the candidtates would be allowed to sign the document that you are referring to but.. as you can see...
The one that they could sign onto...
your guys said "no way". McCain said "where do I sign?"
lazs
-
There you have it Laz supports bans on guns.
-
twentyfo.. I believe that you are even more confused than MT on this.
There was only one petition that the house and congress had a chance to sign. osamabama and billary pulled back in horror at the thought that we as individuals might have rights. they did not sign.
No matter what they say from now on.. it should be apparent that they are lying to us when they say they support our second amendment rights.. they had a chance and they showed their true colors.
No amount of photo op staged pics of them hunting or holding a shotgun will change this. no fond memory lane trips about how billary is just a resurected Annie Oakley.. none of it will fly.
They had their chance to show where they stand and they did.. they don't think you have an individual right to keep and bear arms.. even tho.. in the USA today poll.. more than 90% of the American people do believe it.
They are out of touch with over 90% of the American people. They are bought and paid for by sorros and the brady bunch.
lazs
-
They will not do anything to hamper our 2nd ammendment rights. Living in Nebraska, buying a gun is not that difficult. I went with my buddy to Cabela's to pick out a new shotgun. The process was pretty seamless, he spent more time shopping for one than the actual purchase. No need to be so paranoid about losing 2nd ammendment rights. Gonna take a lot more than a president to do so.
-
They will not do anything to hamper our 2nd ammendment rights. Living in Nebraska, buying a gun is not that difficult. I went with my buddy to Cabela's to pick out a new shotgun. The process was pretty seamless, he spent more time shopping for one than the actual purchase. No need to be so paranoid about losing 2nd ammendment rights. Gonna take a lot more than a president to do so.
be careful with that attitude. that's almost what they want us to all think. then to top it off, the media hypes any and all violence so far out of proportion, that they create fear of weapons. THEN they'll get wehat they want, and you'll wake up one morning with your rights gone.
<<S>>
-
Lacking incorporation of the 2nd is a problem though.
You may have no problem with a shotgun in Nebraska. Try getting a pistol in NYC, DC, Chicago or other places. Try getting a <cough> assault weapon </cough> in Kali.
After the 2nd is incorporated, different story. Not so right now. Incorporation depends primarily on the SC. Presidents appoint SC justices, the Senate confirms them.
-
Lazs, I'm not confused, you are. You said "the amicus brief filed by the government". I found the brief filed by the "government". Maybe you are the one who is confused by the authors of the amicus.
You also have no idea as to the availability of the brief to any of the Senators.
-
MT, do you really think Hutchinson skipped some Senators and Representatives when she circulated the amicus brief for Heller? It got to 300+ of them but somehow Obama and Hillary didn't get a copy?
Reports are Obama refused to sign saying "I don't like taking a stand on pending cases."
I'm thinking Billary and Bama had their chance and passed on it. After all they're in a tight race and they're pandering to the extreme wing of the Democratic party to get the nomination (along with every other wing of the Democratic party). Is it reasonable to think that signing up in favor of Heller's position would improve their chances at the Dem nomination? Nah, don't think it would; it'd hurt, not help.
-
Point is ... neither you nor lazs KNOW. Don't let that stop you from forming an opinion though. Knowing can be detrimental to your cause.
-
Lacking incorporation of the 2nd is a problem though.
You may have no problem with a shotgun in Nebraska. Try getting a pistol in NYC, DC, Chicago or other places. Try getting a <cough> assault weapon </cough> in Kali.
After the 2nd is incorporated, different story. Not so right now. Incorporation depends primarily on the SC. Presidents appoint SC justices, the Senate confirms them.
A pistol or assault weapon would be even easier to get. I know plenty of people who sell those on the "black market". Also, getting one via the internet or gun show is another avenue. All that matters is how much you are willing to spend and how fast you want one.
-
A pistol or assault weapon would be even easier to get. I know plenty of people who sell those on the "black market". Also, getting one via the internet or gun show is another avenue. All that matters is how much you are willing to spend and how fast you want one.
Whats wrong with easily getting a pistol? whats an assault weapon? any weapon can be used in an assault. By black market are you refering to private sales? You can buy cars and houses over the internet why not a firearm?
-
Point is ... neither you nor lazs KNOW. Don't let that stop you from forming an opinion though. Knowing can be detrimental to your cause.
If you beleive someone is experiencing a misunderstanding do you belittle them for any particular reason?
-
You also have no idea as to the availability of the brief to any of the Senators.
MT this is just way below you. Then in your next post you imply that suppositions are being drawn based on a lack of knwledge, when in fact your horses didn't sign. Man up and admit they didn't sign, instead of pulling the Weaselly BS you just tried. It's beneath your character to take such a tack.
-
A I know plenty of people who sell those on the "black market".
Sorry.. plenty? BS I doubt you know one.
-
Actually, MT, you seem to think the generic term "the government" only aplies to the brief you are reffering to. Seems to me "the government" also filed the one Lazs is reffering to. Maybe you're just trying to cloud up the very valid point he's making?
The brief linked by lazs has 9 democratic senators signing, so there's not a clear party line on it. There's no hint that it was witheld from some people in order to make them look bad. I think it's very reasonable to assume that if someone didn't sign the brief, they didn't want to.
Maybe you should ask yourself a simple question: "If Hillary and Obama chose not to sign it, what would that mean?"
-
Sorry.. plenty? BS I doubt you know one.
Ok....if you say so.
-
so let me get this straight....
MT.. do you really believe that with over half of the house and senate signing.. that somehow... your two socialists didn't get the chance to sign? That they didn't know it even existed?
If they didn't know then it would seem that you could link me to the statement made by either of these liberal, anti second amendment rights candidates.. that you could link me to a statement made by them about how they would have signed if the other 99% of the the house and senate had not hid the document from them just to make em look bad?
I will settle for that.. show me where they wished they coulda signed.
Or.. simply admit that neither of the democratic socialist candidates agrees with the 90% of the people of America who all think that it is indeed an individual right. That the only thing that matters to them is taking away rights and getting funds from sorros and anti gun groups and signing on with the United Nations arms limitation agreement (to take guns out of the hands of the people)
Which brings up another point.. John McCain said that he would never sign any UN document that took away our second amendment rights.. Can you say the same for your liberal socialist candidates?
Thought not.
osamabama has said that he favors a ban on handguns and taking away the right to concealed carry that we have... also.. all semi auto firearms.
lazs
-
I believe that the brief I linked was much more in line with your description of a government sponsored amicus brief, since it represents the views of the Executive branch of our government and was submitted by the solicitor general.
I don't believe anyone can draw a single conclusion except that Obama and Clinton are 2 of 50 Senators and 250 representatives that did not sign the Amicus.
And No One can say that anyone "pulled back in horror at the thought that we as individuals might have rights." Without using a great deal of whole cloth.
-
Obama gave an interview to the Chicago Sun Times that clearly shows he wouldn't sign the amicus brief.
S-T: But you don't want to take a stand on the D.C. gun-ban law?
B.O.: I don't like taking a stand on pending cases.
I'm still researching comments by Hillary.
-
Hillary and yomama want to take away guns from citizens, and they haven't showed any real desire to disguise that fact.
They feel that they, and the other morons on the far left should be able to override the Constitution at their convienience. Same thing the loonie left accuse Bush of doing. What? loonie left politicians should be allowed to toss out our rights, but Bush can't? Loonie lefts can't have it both ways.
-
Chit.....
I think everyone should have guns....whether they are legal or not. The NRA are a bunch people who do nothing for the people they are supposed to represent. The only thing the NRA does is collect money in order to build a shrine to Charleton Heston. They need to disband the NRA and create an organization that has some real leadership. An organization that matters to everyone. An organization that is able to overthrow the government if the politicians get out of line.
-
:O
-
Reports are Obama refused to sign saying "I don't like taking a stand on pending cases."
Seems to me thats exactly the time you should be taking a stand.
Once its alrady resolved. What the point?
-
Twenty, sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than it is to post and remove all doubt.
The edit button is your friend.
-
Dred, he doesn't like to take a stand on a pending case because he might pick the wrong side and end up with the losers.
Far better to let the courts decide and then agree with them to show how knowledgeable he is.
I'll be interested in what he has to say about Heller if/when the SC decides the 2nd is an individual right and DC was plumb wayout WRONG.
-
If this court rules that the 2nd is an individual right, and an earlier court ruled (erroneously perhaps) a sawed off shotgun not protected because it wasn't a weapon commonly used by the military, can we infer that individuals will have the right protected by the constitution to bear weapons commonly in use by the military?
-
Chit.....
The NRA are a bunch people who do nothing for the people they are supposed to represent.
Actually this is patently wrong.
-
If this court rules that the 2nd is an individual right, and an earlier court ruled (erroneously perhaps) a sawed off shotgun not protected because it wasn't a weapon commonly used by the military, can we infer that individuals will have the right protected by the constitution to bear weapons commonly in use by the military?
That is a very good question. Toad could answer this better than I.
My opinion is not worth much but from reading a little, it seems the NFA (National Firearms Act) of 1934 was in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. It was required to register certain short barreled and automatic firearms with the MTU (Miscellaneous Tax Unit), later to be called the BATF. Back in those days, the $200 tax/fee was a prohibitive measure designed to restrict ownership of these style weapons. $200 was a lot of money compared to what a firearm would cost.
The Miller case (erroneously) determined short barreled shotguns were not military weapons, and the case was based largely on what weaponry defined "efficiency" in a militia, i.e. weaponry commonly used by the military. The Supreme Court determined SBS's were not military weapons.
In the Supreme Court hearing of the Miller case, the defendants did not show up in court because Miller had been killed and Layton (the other defendant) took a plea bargain before any defense could be formed. This case resulted from Treasury agents looking for a moonshine still and finding one which was non-functional and hadn't been in operation for awhile. They did find Miller's sawed off shotgun on the seat of his truck, and made an arrest on that to save embarrassment from not finding an operating still. Miller had not paid the MTU tax on his firearm.
The U.S. Western District Court for the Western District of Arkansas originally ruled the NFA violated the Second Amendment. The SC reversed that ruling based on what defined a military firearm suitable for a militia. The SC also remanded the case back to district court for further proceedings, which never took place due to no defendants present. A defense was never formed and the Miller case was not completely decisive.
To me, it sure does infer that if the Second Amendment is interpreted as an individual right guaranteeing a right to bear arms (commonly in use by the military,) small arms such as short barreled shotguns and mgs would no longer require taxes/licenses to possess and would basically fall under the same category as handguns. I believe a small arm is defined as any (loaded) firearm which can be carried easily by one person. It does not include ordnance.
The original prohibitive nature of the 1934 NFA was due to gangster usage of certain firearms as SBS's and fully automatic weapons. It's hard to imagine any of the restrictions on those firearms changing because of a constitutional ruling. The original NFA was created by public outcry and unconstitutional according to District Court, yet it has stood up to this day. It's my understanding the Miller case wasn't handled in a completely decisive manner by the SC. Gun control groups champion it as a precedent ruling. We can hope an individual right ruling would pave the way for easing restrictions concerning handguns and concealed carry in all 50 states and Washington DC. I doubt regulations and laws concerning sawed off shotguns and such will change, but theoretically those laws could be relaxed you'd think.
So, to answer your question Iron, in my opinion yes it could be inferred but I don't think it'll happen.
Les
-
Actually this is patently wrong.
The NRA by nature has failed at everything they've fought for. Gun laws are tearing this country apart. A guy kills an intruder on his property in Texas and is sent to jail. What is up with that? Where was the NRA on that one? All the NRA does is compromise. They never get real results. It hurts me deep inside to see our 2nd amendment rights being chipped away by intellectual, East Coast, Ivy League Liberals. I want it my way or no way.
-
The NRA by nature has failed at everything they've fought for. Gun laws are tearing this country apart. A guy kills an intruder on his property in Texas and is sent to jail. What is up with that? Where was the NRA on that one? All the NRA does is compromise. They never get real results. It hurts me deep inside to see our 2nd amendment rights being chipped away by intellectual, East Coast, Ivy League Liberals. I want it my way or no way.
and yet, in an earlier post, you mentoned how easily you could purchase just about anything you wanted, illegally. this would lead me to believe that you may have purchased once or twice from them.THAT sir, makes YOU part of the problem, just as these ILLEGAL sellers are. all of these new(and un-needed) gun laws are aimed at(supposedly) the illegal weapons. so, as long as people like you are buing them, then the powers that be will continue to keep making new, and redundant unneeded laws.
i don't own any guns, mostly because i spend way too much of my money on other hobbies......flying, r/c models, archery, hotrods, and my business are a few. but i DO however believe that if i should so choose, i should be able to LEGALLY own what i want(an someday i may choose to do so). my neighbor has some nice guns. a gu i used to work with i think could hold off the local pd for a day or two with what he owns. but the are legal, even in nj.
i don't know too much about the nra, but before you go accusing them of doing nothing, have you sat and tried to imagine what ths situation would be lke if the'd never existed/? i somehow think it'd be much much worse than it is now.
<<S>>
-
Cap, he's a troll.
Iron, I think that what we can infer is that IF Heller is decided as a clear individual right then you will see a lot more court cases on the 2nd. ;)
The fellow that prepared Heller said his next task is to bring incorporation of the 2nd. THAT would really clear the decks for the "reasonable restriction" fights that are sure to follow Heller and any incorporation of the 2nd.
-
twentyfo.. we all know that you don't have a clue about the NRA. I will bet that you have never visited their NRAILA website.
It would take you about 10 sec to see what they do for the common man and our second amendment rights.
lazs
-
As for how much of our rights will be given back when the supreme court rules....
Well.. there is the mater of scrutiny... or rather, the "tiers of scrutiny" This is their way of backing off of a decision.
If they rule "extreme scrutiny" then for example.. when you say the free speech under extreme scrutiny you get not only speech but the written word and even.. flag burning.. perhaps even defecating in the street..all covered under "free speech". Strict scrutiny means that the spirit of the thing must be upheld.. if we need armed citizens then they can own any arms they wish with no restrictions save citizenship and "able bodied" which means sane also and adult.
If they rule (as the government has asked) "medium scrutiny" Then the government has a right to some reasonable restrictions (can of worms) on a something that says "shall not be infringed" it would mean for instance that.. you would have the right to own and bear useful firearms but that some restrictions could apply..
Obviously... a total ban is not a "reasonable restriction" locked and unloaded is not a "reasonable restriction" it makes the firearm.. not a firearm.
I have no idea what "rare scrutiny" would be except that it would be a dictator or socialists dream ruling.. it would mean that pretty much.. none of us knew our "rights" until our government told us what they were.
lazs
-
THAT sir, makes YOU part of the problem, just as these ILLEGAL sellers are. all of these new(and un-needed) gun laws are aimed at(supposedly) the illegal weapons. so, as long as people like you are buing them, then the powers that be will continue to keep making new, and redundant unneeded laws.
<<S>>
Last I heard we have the right to bear arms, it's in the constitution. Why should we have laws that regulate who can buy what? America was built on the 2nd amendment. Being born an American citizen I should have the right to own any firearm I want. I don't care if I purchased it through legal means or illegal means. This is a right I have and I choose to take advantage of it.
The NRA is useless, and so are its members. A bunch of do nothing citizens who just sit there and let the liberals in Washington take all of their rights away. Until people realize that this organization does nothing but compromise and chip away at our 2nd amendment rights nothing will change. I just wish people would wake up and realize this.
-
Last I heard we have the right to bear arms, it's in the constitution. Why should we have laws that regulate who can buy what? America was built on the 2nd amendment. Being born an American citizen I should have the right to own any firearm I want. I don't care if I purchased it through legal means or illegal means. This is a right I have and I choose to take advantage of it.
The NRA is useless, and so are its members. A bunch of do nothing citizens who just sit there and let the liberals in Washington take all of their rights away. Until people realize that this organization does nothing but compromise and chip away at our 2nd amendment rights nothing will change. I just wish people would wake up and realize this.
i agree that we should be able to own an firearms we want. but the problem is that we CAN'T. so, when people like ou continue to go out and illegally purchase banned guns, that only gives the anti-gun lobbys, people, politicians, etc more ammunition to work towards taking ALL of your rights concerning guns away.
also, remember if you choose to "take advantage" of your right to own an illegal weapon, then when you end up in prison for it, you've also chosen to excersze THAT right too. :D
i really hope you don't walk around spewing the bull in public, that ou do in here, because that i think would reflect poorly on gun owners in general.
like i said, someday i will probably choose to own one, when i do, i'll go through the proper channels(which are hard here in the peoples free republic of nj) and will never have to worry bout hiding it, or ending up in prison.
<<S>>
-
Last I heard we have the right to bear arms, it's in the constitution. Why should we have laws that regulate who can buy what? America was built on the 2nd amendment. Being born an American citizen I should have the right to own any firearm I want. I don't care if I purchased it through legal means or illegal means. This is a right I have and I choose to take advantage of it.
The NRA is useless, and so are its members. A bunch of do nothing citizens who just sit there and let the liberals in Washington take all of their rights away. Until people realize that this organization does nothing but compromise and chip away at our 2nd amendment rights nothing will change. I just wish people would wake up and realize this.
Anyone who would write the above is either clueless in a world record way, or is one huge troll.
Either way, not worth responding to guys.
-
Anyone who would write the above is either clueless in a world record way, or is one huge troll.
Either way, not worth responding to guys.
depends on how ya look at it. it's kinda fun to watch him dig himself in deeper and deeper :rofl :rofl
-
Anyone who would write the above is either clueless in a world record way, or is one huge troll.
Either way, not worth responding to guys.
Sorry that I have my opinions. Not gonna let Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or anyone else who claims to have conservative values tell me other wise. So far no one has even considered what I said. I say the things that you guys feel deep inside, but are afraid to say. Please for the sake of our country wake up and realize what is happening. Find out for yourself and maybe you will see the light.
-
Sorry that I have my opinions. Not gonna let Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or anyone else who claims to have conservative values tell me other wise. So far no one has even considered what I said. I say the things that you guys feel deep inside, but are afraid to say. Please for the sake of our country wake up and realize what is happening. Find out for yourself and maybe you will see the light.
dude, even if we think you;re wrong, don't apologize for having your own opinions. this is a discussion here, and we all have our own. keep em coming, as will we. that is another right we still have.
-
Sorry that I have my opinions. .
You are simply wrong about the NRA. There is ample evidence to prove so yet you have nothing to show your assertion is based in any fact whatsoever. Take the time to educate yourself on a topic before you debate it. Typing misinformed blather then implying others are somehow less informed than you are, in spite of the facts, doesn't make you anything but more wrong.
-
I say the things that you guys feel deep inside, but are afraid to say.
No, you say things that show a true lack of research.
-
twentyfo.. if even one of your beloved liberal socialist politicians told you that the second was meant only for the secret police you would turn yourself and everyone you knew in before they knew what hit em.
You said "no matter where it came from" I take it you are insinuating with your crap idea of sarcasm that we all buy stolen guns? that is not true for anyone I know.
If you can't understand what myself and other gun owners here are all about from reading our past posts then you are even dumber than even I think you are.
You know nothing of the NRA
You know nothing of firearms.
You know nothing about the second amendment
You know nothing about those who believe in it.
Ignorance is not the same as stupid but....
Flaunting it is.
I would suggest that you stick with topics that you know something about but.. I really can't think of a one where you came off like you knew anything at all about the subject.
lazs