VICTORY!!

[John Hardin]

imported post

SpokaneIrish wrote:

Another interesting question is what the ACLU will do. The ACLU has not advocated for gun owners because they held the positio that this was a collective right. Essentially not a civil right. Go to their site on gun rights. THis decision changes that. It will be interesting to see if the ACLU changes its tune or wiggles out of the issue.

Fat farging chance. "The Supreme Court is wrong, the Founding Fathers were wrong, we're right. We're not changing our position that everything is a Right except for self defense, which only the Government can do."

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/06/26/aclu-on-heller/

--

 

[John Hardin]

imported post

kparker wrote:

We didn't get to the sorry state we're in all it once; it was by incrementalism. We're going to get out of this hole the same way. What happened today isn't the end of the road, just an important step along the way.

We finally poured some cement into the bottom of the hole, and now have a good foundation for further work.

--

 

[VoiceinShelton]

imported post

Hello everyone and good morning(first post cheers). I believe this ruling is a step in the right direction. The effects of this ruling were noticed within what, 15minutes of the ruling? That is a great sign.

Does anyone know if the NRA is going to challenge any laws here in Washington?

 

[bcp]

imported post

SpokaneIrish wrote:

The incorporation issue is one that would have to be decided by the US Supreme Ct. At this point, it has yet to be incorporated. However, incorporation is extremely likely now.

On page 43-44 of the decision, comments are made about how one intent of the 14th amendment was to secure the rights of the 2nd ammendment, so they couldn't be abridged by states.

Sound to me like that was put into the decision to help incorporation efforts.

Bruce

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

VoiceinShelton wrote:

Hello everyone and good morning(first post cheers). I believe this ruling is a step in the right direction. The effects of this ruling were noticed within what, 15minutes of the ruling? That is a great sign.

Does anyone know if the NRA is going to challenge any laws here in Washington?

Welcome!

Washington has a pretty decent set of gun laws. I don't think the NRA or other groups will be doing much here for the moment. Some things still need changing though IMHO.

Licensed OC in vehicles... total BS if you ask me.
The machine gun/short barrel shotgun/rifle ban (jeez no new machine guns have been registered since 1986 and a SBR requires federal registration and the signature of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of where you live)
Use of a silencer. (You can own 'em, and even screw them onto your weapon, but better not put a round through it)
The de facto ban on college carry. It's not illegal per se, but every single college right after they finish burbling about how they will respect all your rights, go on to ban students from legally carrying.

 

[Wheelgunner]

imported post

Good points SV!



The silencer ban is ridiculous. Based on Heller, the Gov has to show a compelling interest to outlaw items that are firearm related. Suppressors are not in that category and contribute to deafness in society as a whole.

The college carry is going to be fought tooth and nail by the libs, as they will try to make the argument that the decision clearly delineated "schools" as a place that firearms can be regulated (meaning banned) so they will cling to anything they can get.

The "overall length" stuff can be attacked on the argument that it is "arbitrary and capricious". (Why is a rifle with a 15 and 3/4 inch barrel worth 10 years in the slammer while a 16 inch barrel has the blessing of the state?).

Missed by the MSM is the fact that based on Heller, a man in New York City can now strap a gun on his hip in broad daylight and he is untouchable. Keep and Bear means "Keep and Bear". Open carry or Concealed carry, your choice!

 

[swillden]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Your interpretation doesn't wash as they left the NFA in place so no auto weapons allowed.

A) NFA doesn't ban full auto.

B) SCOTUS could not have addressed NFA in this ruling, because it wasn't part of the question before them.

 

[swillden]

imported post

kparker wrote:

I'd propose this as a shorter version of/supplement to Dave Workman's bit:

We didn't get to the sorry state we're in all it once; it was by incrementalism. We're going to get out of this hole the same way. What happened today isn't the end of the road, just an important step along the way.

Absolutely.

If we try to get everything at once, we'll get nothing. The anti-gunners have long understood the value of incremental restrictions, a nibble here, a nibble there, working gradually toward their goal. We need to understand the same thing, and accept the victories we can get while we continue pushing for more.

And there's no doubt about it -- this is a HUGE victory.

 

[SpokaneIrish]

imported post

Wheelgunner wrote:

Missed by the MSM is the fact that based on Heller, a man in New York City can now strap a gun on his hip in broad daylight and he is untouchable. Keep and Bear means "Keep and Bear". Open carry or Concealed carry, your choice!

Not true. This is the "incorporation" issue. As originally drafted, the bill of rights were a restriction on the Federal Government only. After the 14th amendment was ratified the Supreme Court held that some rights were incorporated by the 14th and therefore restricted the states. The 2nd Amendment has never been held to be one of these. Under Heller, no state or municipal law would be invalid as the 2nd Amendment is only a restriction on the Federal Government.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

A little celebration is fine, but think about this: the 2nd Ammendment's official meaning came down to the vote of ONE individual yesterday.

A nation of millions of humans, and the decision about who is right on the 2nd Ammendment was decided by just one.

Yes, I'm happy that man chose the answer I wanted to hear, but I'll be a lot more happy when we can move the margin from 5-4 to something like 8-1.

Destroying gun control and anti-self defense nonsense is that important to civilization. The philosophy of the gun control crowd is far from dead. Just because USSC says so doesn't make it true. You all know this, you've seen them make decisions you don't like; how you felt then is how the antis feel right now. You haven't given up and there's no reason to think they will either.

It's not enough for us to just win a legal battle, we have to win hearts and minds. Despite the fact that the constitution should protect us from majority abuse, without having the majority on your side life is a lot tougher.

So drink a toast, take a quick breather for a few days, then get ready to jump back into the fray. The fight to protect your liberty is never over.

 

[uncoolperson]

imported post

Wheelgunner wrote:

Open carry or Concealed carry, your choice!

around here isn't that as bad as saying one in the chamber or empty chamber, your choice

 

[just_a_car]

imported post

uncoolperson wrote:

Wheelgunner wrote:

Open carry or Concealed carry, your choice!

around here isn't that as bad as saying one in the chamber or empty chamber, your choice

Yup, it's "that.. bad".... e.g., totally acceptable and not frowned upon by respectable members.

You can disagree with one or the other, but to 'poo-poo' one and say someone is "dumb", "careless", or outright "stupid" for choosing one over the other is unacceptable, at least to me. I know it's not against forum rules, but in my opinion, you make yourself look like an ass by doing so.