(Forum Home)--->(System Info & Announcements)--->(WE WIN!!!)
| Thread Admin: AuctionArmsCeo (6-0-0) (Last 10 Posts) | Posted: 06/26/2008 at 17:53:31 |
| Total Posts: 55 |
Thread Title: "WE WIN!!!"
|
| Thread Admin: AuctionArmsCeo (6-0-0) (Last 10 Posts) | Posted: 06/26/2008 at 17:53:31 |
| Total Posts: 55 |
Thread Title: "WE WIN!!!"
|
| Former Seller: Fyrd(18-0-0) | Post#21 - Posted: 07/06/2008 at 15:04:19 |
| (no avatar) | We will take them BACK to court, the Supreme Court if necessary. We won the individual right to keep. We now have to have the court address 'bear' and 'shall not be infringed' as they relate to the INDIVIDUAL right, not a collective right.
This decision is a stake in the ground. Here and no further. From here on out the Anti's are facing a defensive war, which will fail if we don't let up. |
| Former Seller: ELDORADO 1(221-0-0) | Post#22 - Posted: 07/06/2008 at 19:15:49 |
| (no avatar) | That's exactly my point....Thank you Fyrd. At least I can sleep tonight knowing that somebody gets it. Trapper....If you don't get it....talk to the NRA ....call them and ask them what it means....They will tell you how important it is and it is a BIG WIN!!! Please educate yourself with the true understanding of what role this will play in getting more done from the offense. And please....quit the pesamistic attitude....gezzzzz....you act as though you are defeated before you have begun. |
| Former Seller: Hagrid(23-0-0) | Post#23 - Posted: 07/07/2008 at 17:51:00 |
|
Eldorado, It is you who do not get it.Try it this way. Forget that the SJC ruled on the individual right, Forget that they ruled that you cannot ban HANDGUNS IN THE HOME.Forget that they ruled that you do not have to have a trigger lock IN THE HOME. OK? Now remember what else they ruled on. That the State and local govts CAN PREVENT YOU FROM OWNING A FIREAM BY CREATING ORDINANCES,LAWS AND LICENSEING POLICIES THAT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO OBTAIN A GUN. They ruled that the regulation of firearms lies within the privy of the local and state govts.SO what they gave with this great ruling, they took away with the next sentance.You guys keep saying we will take them to court one law at a time. What court? The highest court in the land already ruled that they can do what they wish as long as it is not ARBITRARY or CAPRECIOUS. So who do you think you are going to appeal to? The SJC??? TRAPPER |
| Former Seller: Elitist(101-0-0) | Post#24 - Posted: 07/07/2008 at 18:31:33 |
|
the State and local govts CAN PREVENT YOU FROM OWNING A FIREAM BY CREATING ORDINANCES,LAWS AND LICENSEING POLICIES THAT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO OBTAIN A GUN.
Yeah, and at one time they could pass laws that prevented you from voting if you were the wrong color. They can't do that anymore. Know why? Because Brown vs Board of Education and the lawsuits it spawned in the following decades abolished the old laws one by one, and today there are no more poll taxes, literacy tests, requirements for land ownership, etc., required to vote, anywhere, in any state. Get this through your head: Heller was a major win. It was THE win that was needed. Without that win, NOTHING could be done: with it, in time, EVERYTHING can be done. It seems to me you're being willfully obtuse: you can't have it all at one go, so you don't want any of it. Just watch and see what happens in the next 10 years. Then come bnack here and whine about how "we didn't win anything" a bit. |
| Former Seller: ELDORADO 1(221-0-0) | Post#25 - Posted: 07/08/2008 at 06:53:12 |
| (no avatar) | Elitist....THANK YOU....Now I know that you and Fyrd and myself...Get it! |
| Former Seller: Sportsmanssupply(3363-0-3) | Post#26 - Posted: 07/08/2008 at 09:42:35 |
| (no avatar) | I get it too. |
| Former Seller: ELDORADO 1(221-0-0) | Post#27 - Posted: 07/08/2008 at 14:21:41 |
| (no avatar) | Sorry Grant didn't mean to leave you out. |
| Seller: AA-bob(3-0-0) | Post#28 - Posted: 07/08/2008 at 15:02:22 |
|
Gents, my read of this part of the holding in Heller... "Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." ...is that the Supreme Court avoided for later what "licensing" or other legislative or administrative restrictions would constitute an unconstitutional infringement on the individual's Second Amemndment rights. Reading between the lines, I think this sends a clear signal that they will be open to reviewing such restrictions in the future in an effort to determine the correct "scrutiny" test to apply in Second Amendment legistation infringement cases. |
| Former Seller: Hagrid(23-0-0) | Post#29 - Posted: 07/08/2008 at 16:38:53 |
|
|
I hate to argue with people I respect but you all have missed, for some reason,What the SJC said outside of the ruling you keep quoting. Go to this URl www.dcguncase.com/blog Read pages 53-55. the SJC states (my words)that their ruling should not be interpeted as removing the limitations for possessing firearms such as(it then list a standard list of prohibitions of buildings,felon, mentally insane and then the biggie The regulation for the commercial sale of firearms by the Feds or the States or even the locals.So as read, the state of california can regulate that no firearm holding more than one round can be sold or purchased. Or perhaps that no firearm that is not completely tracable to its original owner may be sold or possessed. I could go on and on but put your own worst nightmare in there. the SJC has given the right to regulate to the States without hinderance. That is all I have been saying all along. they can now,by SJC law, regulate firearms out of existance and the ruling is now the law of the land. trapper |
| Former Seller: Fyrd(18-0-0) | Post#30 - Posted: 07/08/2008 at 16:57:45 |
| (no avatar) | I understand the point you are making, but I disagree with your conclusion. This ruling doesn't give the state and local governments the right to regulate. This ruling didn't 'address' that issue, because that issue wasn't brought to it in Heller, nor was that issue argued before the court. It simply let stand what was in place, unless and until, those regulations are challenged.
Think foundation stones. Heller is the corner stone that establishes the RTKABA as an individual right, not a collective right of the state or in any way connected with a government militia. Next case may address the meaning of 'bear', next case the meaning of 'shall not be infringed'. There will be many more cases before we can get back to the original intent. Heller is the beginning of the end for the gun banners. They will eventually loose,(and most of them know this) but they won't go quietly. We will win, assuming we have the fortitude to continue the fight and press the advantage while the momentum is with us. |
