2nd Amendment Victory

browndevil

Well-Known Member
It DID make the Nov. ballot. They have already written in the paper about the "what if" and will all those marriages be voided out.
According SF Attorney general Dennis H all same sex marriage performed now will be upheld if same sex marriage laws are overturned November. My question is how can granting persons equal protection under the law go to the voters? A vote wasn't cast when interacial marriage was lifted in Ca. in 1948 or nationwide in 1967.Moreluck I would love to have a spirited conversation with you regarding this issue. I still have your email. All the best:happy2:
 

over9five

Moderator
Staff member
The 2nd Amendment victory is great!

However, I find it disturbing that 4 SC justices find the US Constitution unconstitutional.....

It really should have been unanimous.
 

tieguy

Banned
As far as the Gun Control goes - I am not a big gun advocate but I certainly think that the bad guys are going to get the guns no matter what.

What about the good guys? Should they use BB guns to protect themselves???

DC murder rate is about the same as 1976 according to CNN so that tells me with gun control the advantage goes to the criminal.

About what I expected. I don't think the criminal who is willing to kill will worry about the mandatory sentence for possession.
 

bellesotico

BOXstar
As far as the Gun Control goes - I am not a big gun advocate but I certainly think that the bad guys are going to get the guns no matter what.

What about the good guys? Should they use BB guns to protect themselves???

DC murder rate is about the same as 1976 according to CNN so that tells me with gun control the advantage goes to the criminal.

I think that a lot of people think that this decision means big changes and legal gunfights. Not so. No changes. Only means that in places you currently can't get a permit for a firearm, now you may..through the proper procedures of course.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
 

tieguy

Banned
According SF Attorney general Dennis H all same sex marriage performed now will be upheld if same sex marriage laws are overturned November. My question is how can granting persons equal protection under the law go to the voters? A vote wasn't cast when interacial marriage was lifted in Ca. in 1948 or nationwide in 1967.Moreluck I would love to have a spirited conversation with you regarding this issue. I still have your email. All the best:happy2:

I believe its the judicials branchs job to determine the validity of the laws. If not then minorities may never have gotten equal rights in some southern states.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
A little more detail:click

In addition handguns can't be taken out of the house, and must be stored unloaded and disassembled or with a triggerlock. They are basically trying to make it as big a pain in the ass as possible to own a handgun in D.C.
 

over9five

Moderator
Staff member
A little more detail:click

In addition handguns can't be taken out of the house, and must be stored unloaded and disassembled or with a triggerlock. They are basically trying to make it as big a pain in the ass as possible to own a handgun in D.C.

Agree on the PIA. I look forward to continuing lawsuits against DC that will straighten this situation out. Unbelievable what these local politicians are doing. Disassembled! "get the toolkit honey, someones breaking in!"

DC, the capitol of violent crime in America. Why the fool residents don't vote that bum mayor and city council out? "...protecting the safety of our residents." For YEARS, DC has protected criminals by refusing to allow residents the right of self protection.

These are new times DC politicians. Better come to grips with it or look for employment elsewhere!
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Agree on the PIA. I look forward to continuing lawsuits against DC that will straighten this situation out. Unbelievable what these local politicians are doing. Disassembled! "get the toolkit honey, someones breaking in!"

DC, the capitol of violent crime in America. Why the fool residents don't vote that bum mayor and city council out? "...protecting the safety of our residents." For YEARS, DC has protected criminals by refusing to allow residents the right of self protection.

These are new times DC politicians. Better come to grips with it or look for employment elsewhere!

Oh Over9five.....guns are for the militia only. LOL!
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
Agree on the PIA. I look forward to continuing lawsuits against DC that will straighten this situation out. Unbelievable what these local politicians are doing. Disassembled! "get the toolkit honey, someones breaking in!"

DC, the capitol of violent crime in America. Why the fool residents don't vote that bum mayor and city council out? "...protecting the safety of our residents." For YEARS, DC has protected criminals by refusing to allow residents the right of self protection.

These are new times DC politicians. Better come to grips with it or look for employment elsewhere!

You have to remember that D.C. pretty much set the benchmark for mayoral corruption, vice and municipal mismanagement during the Marion Barry administration. Current mayor Adrian Fenty is a huge improvement, even if his gun policy is wrongheaded.
 

satellitedriver

Moderator
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
D.C. had some of the strongest gun control laws in the nation, but it also had one of the highest rate of gun violence in the nation.
It seems gun prohibition only serves those who are willing to break the law.
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
D.C. had some of the strongest gun control laws in the nation, but it also had one of the highest rate of gun violence in the nation.
It seems gun prohibition only serves those who are willing to break the law.
Funny how gun prohibition works out huh? take away the guns and the only people left with them are the criminals.... hmmm
 

Jagger

Well-Known Member
Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Just An Excuse

Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism


In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of Heller v. D. C, authored by a notorious judicial activist, Justice Scalia, announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they were normally and ordinarily used by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.
Scalia is mistaken. The meaning of the constitution must be ascertained by the application of such rules of interpretation as were understood and recognized as just and valid, at the time the constitution was framed and adopted. At the time the Constitution was made, the well established common law rules of construction didn't include any rule which dictated that a legal instrument was to be understood according the the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the generation that produced the instrument.

Scalia is an activist. He doesn't want to be bound by the rules of construction as were understood and recognized as just and valid, at the time the constitution was framed and adopted, because they won't produce results that square with his personal views.he wants. So, he digs up some nonsense he found in the dicta of an 1930's judicial opinion.

He does this merely to have a pretext to substitute his personal opinions for the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Second Amendment, in the name of the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
A little more detail:click

In addition handguns can't be taken out of the house, and must be stored unloaded and disassembled or with a triggerlock. They are basically trying to make it as big a pain in the ass as possible to own a handgun in D.C.

If I am not mistaken that is in direct violation of the court's orders. They could still require registration, but cannot dictate trigger locks or that the gun be disassembled.
 

over9five

Moderator
Staff member
If I am not mistaken that is in direct violation of the court's orders. They could still require registration, but cannot dictate trigger locks or that the gun be disassembled.

It IS in direct violation, but they are doing it anyway. Why this city won't let its citizens have the right of self defense is beyond me.

The NRA and Heller are taking the city back to court.

DC is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. They can't possibly think they are above the Supreme Court, can they?
 

Jagger

Well-Known Member
It IS in direct violation, but they are doing it anyway. Why this city won't let its citizens have the right of self defense is beyond me.

The NRA and Heller are taking the city back to court.

DC is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. They can't possibly think they are above the Supreme Court, can they?

There's no right to self defense in the Constitution.
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
There's no right to self defense in the Constitution.
well I guess you could use your guns as paperweights but me thinks they are a pretty good way of self defense. Hence, right to own guns. You go ahead and negotiate with the criminal; me I'll take my chances with my paperweight
 

Jagger

Well-Known Member
The methodology of interpretation used by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Heller opinion is probably not that which the lawmakers intended for him to use. Scalia states that he will interpret the text of the Second Amendment according to the "normal and ordinary" meanings that would been given it by "ordinary citizens in the founding generation."

Anyone knowledgeable of the common law in America in the late 1700's knows that it was well established law that the goal or object of interpreting laws was "the will of the legislator", not the understanding of "ordinary citizens." (See Blackstone's commentary on the "interpretation of laws" in his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England.)

Thomas Jefferson was a lawyer and would have known what the object of interpreting a law was when the Second Amendment was made. He was preaching it in 1812 to the Governor of Virginia.

The... maxims of the bench, to seek the will of the legislator and his words only, are proper... for judicial government.

--Thomas Jefferson to James Barbour, 1812. ME 13:128​
 
Top