doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com supreme court to rule

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080317/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.

The amendment reads: "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."

I can read this over and over and can only find one meaning to
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms,"

Have you read the Fourth, lately?

How is that interpreted these days?

Anyone know that the brief filed by the Bush Justice Department said the Appeal Court decision which upheld the right as an individual right stating that the District of Colombia could not legislate banning all handguns should be sent back? Sort of surprised the NRA.

You can read the NRA take on it here:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3388

Jake

The people's rights have infringed long enough on the plans of the New World Order. Like lambs to the slaughter - it'll be the kinder culture of the next generation that will be willing to be disarmed!
Peace.

How about it!
Anyone interested in keeping that old barreled action you bought at the farm auction last week?

It would be nice if we get a slam dunk ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of an individual right that shall not be infringed, but I won't hold my breath on it.

IMHO, they'll likely acknowledge that it is an individual right (they would have to make some incredible legal and philisophical contortions that would make Gumby look like he was made out of stone to deny it is an individual right), but allow it to be infringed anyway.

The firearm-phobic anti-gun states like Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, etc. will fight to the last to find any justification to preserve their unconsitutional and ineffective gun control laws no matter what the Court says. They will also likely seek ways to create a defacto ban such as trying to regulate ammunition through enivornmental laws. This fight will never be over.

I believe that the argument is that the people used to be THE militia. But this is not true anymore. So, that is their argument. You can interpret something anyway you want. But don't worry, when ol' Hillary gets in there, you won't have any trouble interpreting her point of view...... I hate to say this, but what it is going to come down to one day is if the people are willing to actually/literally fight to keep their guns. I'll probably be long gone by then. But when the police start knocking on people's doors, they'll just have to be surrounded and butchered. Once millions of people slaughter a few hundred thousand police, they'll start getting the picture and back down. I believe that is what it is going to take. Like I said, that will be long after I'm gone. People are going to have to fight if they want to keep those SXS, like we have been doing for centuries. So, the young people are going to have to ask themselves if they have the guts to fight for what is their's or if they are going to lie down and give in. I hate to say it, but that's the way I see it coming.

During the time of the Revolution, there were two types of militia. One was reviled and called the "Special" militia which was similar to our National Guard of today. It was not trusted as it was a governmenty entity. The respected militia was simply groups of ordinary citizens who may or may not have had any involvement with any government entity. This revered type then is the reviled type today.

The cops already started knocking in New Orleans during Katrina. Amazing no cops were killed.

I know, Pete. That surprised me down there in N.O....... People in other countries are just handing over their guns. I hate to talk like a revolutionist but I wonder what people are going to do here in the future.

My concern(fear) with this case and the potential ruling, is based in an earlier decision by the court. That is that your private property could be taken by the government and given to another individual if the individual can show he can put it to better use than you! I was stunned by that decision! An obvious erosion of an individuals power. A fundamental right lost by verdict of the courts liberal judges, including one appointed by George Hurbert Walker Bush, but clearly an demonstration of the risk in the addition of more liberal judges to the court. My further concern is that this recent event appears to be gone from the collective minds of the electorate in this current political season! "CHANGE" I beleive is the motto? "From the pan to the fire" maybe the result? Sheep? Blind Sheep more likely!