(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: 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. |
| Seller: AA-bob(3-0-0) | Post#31 - Posted: 07/08/2008 at 17:06:41 |
|
|
bugmantrap, that portion of the opinion your point out is not "the holding" in this case. It is window dressing and is commonly refered to in legalese as "dicta" or more correctly, "Obiter dicta" ... those [words] which are not binding, but are merely editorializing, or explanatory in nature. |
| Thread Admin: AuctionArmsCeo(6-0-0) | Post#32 - Posted: 07/09/2008 at 21:25:35 |
|
This is basic, folks. Prior to this ruling, no court in the land would take seriously the merits of argueing a person's 2nd Amendment rights were violated. In many ways, without this ruling, the antis had already won and we kept anything resembling 2nd Amendment rights because of the popularity of guns - and not because of anything the courts were doing to help us. This changes that. Now, a lawyer can march into a courtroom, and regardless of a judge's personal predilictions, that judge will have to respect the high court's explicit statement that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right - and at least give that lawyer's arguments some thought.
This is a win. Our win. Soak it up! |
| Former Seller: ELDORADO 1(224-0-0) | Post#33 - Posted: 07/10/2008 at 11:54:11 |
| (no avatar) | Manny......You are 100% correct my friend. So have you got the suit filed against the Kalifornia Department of Justice yet? Let's get this boat rocking and keep it going! |
| Former Seller: Hagrid(23-0-0) | Post#34 - Posted: 07/10/2008 at 18:42:38 |
|
|
Well gentlemen, we have at least proved one point. We have completed 34 post to this thread and I have not read a single name called nor personal attack brought forth.We have disagreed and agreed while being civil about it. I will agree to give this some more thought from your side of the arguement.AA-Bob make a point with me with his last two posts. It is a side I had not considered.So I, as I am sure all of you, will have to develope a wait and see attitude as to where the antis attack and how they attack next. good thread. Trapper |
| Former Seller: Sportsmanssupply(3387-0-3) | Post#35 - Posted: 07/11/2008 at 10:50:34 |
| (no avatar) | AABob's law degree can come in handy sometimes. |