Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Tomorrow

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/...n_ruling_p.html

[MrsCat 6]

If it goes against individual's right to bear arms - Alaska is going to have an uprising.

My husband, as an. . . ahem. . . . gift, enrolled this Canadian in the NRA. For the past 3 months I've been getting Freedom First (NRA magazine) which has been dissecting and disseminating the whole pro-arms argument posed before the Supreme Court. I must say, they've even made a believer out of this anti-hand gun Canuck.

Edited June 25, 2008 by cattattude

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If it goes against individual's right to bear arms - Alaska is going to have an uprising.

My husband, as an. . . ahem. . . . gift, enrolled this Canadian in the NRA. For the past 3 months I've been getting Freedom First (NRA magazine) which has been dissecting and disseminating the whole pro-arms argument posed before the Supreme Court. I must say, they've even made a believer out of this anti-hand gun Canuck.

I believe the Supreme Court will rule that outright banning of guns is unconstitutional, but laws restricting the use and type of gun is reasonable.

[zqt3344 21]

Guns are a blessing for protection of innocent citizens.

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/...n_ruling_p.html

[Ban Hammer 13,356]

If it goes against individual's right to bear arms - Alaska is going to have an uprising.

My husband, as an. . . ahem. . . . gift, enrolled this Canadian in the NRA.

you go girl!

[zqt3344 21]

Every American should experience this once! Talk about a sense of what it is to be an American, go to this once!

http://www.oklahomafullauto.com/

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/...n_ruling_p.html

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

If it goes against individual's right to bear arms - Alaska is going to have an uprising.

My husband, as an. . . ahem. . . . gift, enrolled this Canadian in the NRA. For the past 3 months I've been getting Freedom First (NRA magazine) which has been dissecting and disseminating the whole pro-arms argument posed before the Supreme Court. I must say, they've even made a believer out of this anti-hand gun Canuck.

Good for you. The world has another free thinker.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... but laws restricting the use and type of gun is reasonable.

As long as they don't infringe on the right to "keep" and "bear" them. That's clearly guaranteed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

... but laws restricting the use and type of gun is reasonable.

As long as they don't infringe on the right to "keep" and "bear" them. That's clearly guaranteed.

Yep. Which means that city and state governments can continue to pass laws that restrict possession, use and type of guns.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... but laws restricting the use and type of gun is reasonable.

As long as they don't infringe on the right to "keep" and "bear" them. That's clearly guaranteed.

Yep. Which means that city and state governments can continue to pass laws that restrict possession, use and type of guns.

"Keep" is possession. I don't see how they can continue to restrict that once the SCOTUS rules the way I hope and assume they will.

If people have a problem with the right to keep and bear arms, they should try to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Trying to do an end run around it by working technicalities is just disingenuous.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

... but laws restricting the use and type of gun is reasonable.

As long as they don't infringe on the right to "keep" and "bear" them. That's clearly guaranteed.

Yep. Which means that city and state governments can continue to pass laws that restrict possession, use and type of guns.

"Keep" is possession. I don't see how they can continue to restrict that once the SCOTUS rules the way I hope and assume they will.

If people have a problem with the right to keep and bear arms, they should try to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Trying to do an end run around it by working technicalities is just disingenuous.

IMO, the Second Amendment is too ambiguous to suggest that the Right to Bear Arms includes all weapons or any kind of weapon. Remember, it doesn't say gun nor does it mean in your possession at all times. SCOTUS will have to define within those parameters what would be reasonable.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

IMO, the Second Amendment is too ambiguous to suggest that the Right to Bear Arms includes all or any weapon. Remember, it doesn't say gun nor does it mean in your possession at all times. SCOTUS will have to define within those parameters what would be reasonable.

Yes, they will.

I hope they lean on the side of individual liberties

[one...two...tree 2,762]

IMO, the Second Amendment is too ambiguous to suggest that the Right to Bear Arms includes all or any weapon. Remember, it doesn't say gun nor does it mean in your possession at all times. SCOTUS will have to define within those parameters what would be reasonable.

Yes, they will.

I hope they lean on the side of individual liberties

I'm in favor of gun ownership and concealed weapons permits, but the scope of just what is reasonable varies. For example, you couldn't walk into a subway station with a Samurai Sword and the reasons why you can't are reasonable - to keep the peace.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

IMO, the Second Amendment is too ambiguous to suggest that the Right to Bear Arms includes all or any weapon. Remember, it doesn't say gun nor does it mean in your possession at all times. SCOTUS will have to define within those parameters what would be reasonable.

Yes, they will.

I hope they lean on the side of individual liberties

I'm in favor of gun ownership and concealed weapons permits, but the scope of just what is reasonable varies. For example, you couldn't walk into a subway station with a Samurai Sword and the reasons why you can't are reasonable - to keep the peace.

Yes, for an example of what happens when people walk around with swords, see the Ninja thread

[Scott & Lai 12]

If it goes against individual's right to bear arms - Alaska is going to have an uprising.

My husband, as an. . . ahem. . . . gift, enrolled this Canadian in the NRA. For the past 3 months I've been getting Freedom First (NRA magazine) which has been dissecting and disseminating the whole pro-arms argument posed before the Supreme Court. I must say, they've even made a believer out of this anti-hand gun Canuck.

Good for you. The world has another free thinker.

Great magazine, that

IMO, the Second Amendment is too ambiguous to suggest that the Right to Bear Arms includes all or any weapon. Remember, it doesn't say gun nor does it mean in your possession at all times. SCOTUS will have to define within those parameters what would be reasonable.

Yes, they will.

I hope they lean on the side of individual liberties

IMO, the Second Amendment is too ambiguous to suggest that the Right to Bear Arms includes all or any weapon. Remember, it doesn't say gun nor does it mean in your possession at all times. SCOTUS will have to define within those parameters what would be reasonable.

Yes, they will.

I hope they lean on the side of individual liberties

I'm in favor of gun ownership and concealed weapons permits, but the scope of just what is reasonable varies. For example, you couldn't walk into a subway station with a Samurai Sword and the reasons why you can't are reasonable - to keep the peace.

Hey, if Uma Thurman in Kill Bill could take a Samurai sword on a plane as a carry-on and wear it openly while walking through the airport, why can't I take one into a subway station?