Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[John Roberts {JR}]

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-scotus27-2008jun27,0,34238 14.story

Is there anyone down range?  

Is there anyone down range?

Lock and load ...

fire at will Ladies....

JR

[Charlie Zureki]

  JR et al,

 I was nervously waiting for the decision to be handed down today from the Supreme Court. With  the "climate" (notice I didn't say the "P" word) of the last several years, I expected a different decision.
 I hope we can see more logic being used in the future.    Not only is this a victory for D.C., but for many more communities.

I will continue to sleep at night knowing I have the right to protect myself and family.

Cheers,

Hammer



 

[Rob Timmerman]

And for those who want to read the full decision, it's available at
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2 901.pdf

[Bennett Prescott]

I was wondering who'd post the news to the LAB first.

I read most of the complete opinion, I'll have to finish it and the dissenting opinions later, but a lot of interesting and very valid points are made and supported or refuted. Scalia also has a very dry sense of absurdity humor that seeps into his writing.

Should make for some interesting news in the next few years, I hear the NRA is already planning to go after NYC, Chicago, and California. It would be nice if our right to self defense was less of a minefield.

[Chris Davis]

+1

Never owned one, but that has never stopped me from being a proud member of the Matter Of Principle crowd.

[SteveKirby]

Funny the original case was about the denial of a registration/permit, not the right to own.  I'm curious as to what the defining criteria was for the denial.  Maybe that fellow shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm for legitimate reasons.  Just as folks who meet some reasonable criteria should be allowed to.

Highly polarizing subject.  When I was a kid and my father took me into the woods to teach me how to shoot he explained that the only real purpose of the device was to kill something.  And to never consider pointing it any any thing or one that I didn't intend to kill.  That perspective still works for me.  Sport/target shooting being basically training/practice at operating a lethal device.

Not a live or die subject for me, so I haven't been following it with the bated breath of the folks invested on either side of the subject.  But it's always interesting to me how some legitimate circumstance can get skewed into a polarized battle.

[Bennett Prescott]

SteveKirby wrote on Fri, 27 June 2008 18:48

Funny the original case was about the denial of a registration/permit, not the right to own.  I'm curious as to what the defining criteria was for the denial.  Maybe that fellow shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm for legitimate reasons.  Just as folks who meet some reasonable criteria should be allowed to.

Steve,

Dick Heller is a D.C. Special Policeman, basically a private security guard. He is allowed to carry a weapon on duty, but the catch-22 (weapon must be registered, we don't issue registrations) laws in D.C. prevented him from doing so. As he isn't a prohibited person, there was no legal reason for the denial, so he sued. Fortunately, he won, and hopefully now we can help other honest citizens exercise their right to defend themselves, and strike a careful balance that keeps easy access to arms out of the hands of criminals.

[John Roberts {JR}]

The supremes probably picked that case from the many to "not" make too strong of a statement on the subject. Just get it pointed in the right general direction. The real law will be written to handle specific local needs, in lower courts.

That is a room full of seriously smart cats... and it shows.

I wish congress had 1/100th their IQ.

JR

[Andy Zimmerman]

I would feel more relieved if it wasn't such a close vote. It worries me when governments start restricting gun (handgun/rifle/shotgun) ownership. It seems such restrictions rarely (never?) work out for the good of the general public. Hopefully, we've staved off such an outcome here for the foreseeable future. Maybe Mr. Stevens and his fellow dissenters need to step out into the world a little more if they can't see a need to have guns for self-defense.

[Brad Ferguson]

As a Canadian where there is far far far far less gun-related crime, my views are different for my home are different.  Although if I did live in america I would certainly think about owning some sort of something, just due to the fact that I think it's more necessary south of the border.

In Canada there is a tremendous push to ban all guns that aren't hunting firearms.  I'm willing to bet that it will happen in the next five years too.  I think it's fine for us since we don't have the crime you guys have.