survived another scare......... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Pennsylvania Boards] >> Off Topic Discussions - Pennsylvania



Message


rapala11 -> survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 10:44:37 AM)


From Bill MearsCNN Supreme Court Producer[image]http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/global/story_tools/text_size.gif[/image] [image]http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/global/story_tools/txt_minus.gif[/image] [image]http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/global/story_tools/txt_minus_dn_.gif[/image] [image]http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/global/story_tools/txt_plus.gif[/image] [image]http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/global/story_tools/txt_plus_dn.gif[/image] WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

[image]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/art.court.afp.gi.jpg[/image]


A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.[image]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif[/image] The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.
At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.
District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.
In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.
Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.

Don't Miss

Child rapists can't be executed, court rules
Court rules in favor of Muslim at Gitmo
High court to decide whether Navy saving whales
Gun laws in high court's sights "In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.
"What more am I supposed to do?" Parker recalled asking authorities. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' " [image]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/interactive.gif[/image] See how proponents, opponents argued ยป
Elilta "Lily" Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.
"There has to be tighter gun control; we can't let another Virginia Tech to happen," she told the court. "And we're just not doing it; we're sitting around; we're doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres."
In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.
It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.
City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."
There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.
The Second Amendment says, "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."
The wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.
The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.
Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.
The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.
In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.


[image]http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/content/ads/advertisement.gif[/image]
"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.
Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or dissembled




Bughawk -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 12:03:58 PM)

I am glad that our second amendment rights are protected, but I am concerned as to what this ruling may mean as far as other gun control laws.  I certainly hope this does not open the door to anyone carrying a gun where ever they feel like it, whenever they feel like it, using the excuse they are protecting themselves.  Also, I would hope this does not mean people will start taking the law into their own hands and decide to use a gun to protect property as well as their person. 

Carrying a gun comes with a HUGE responsibility.  If you have to use it in self defense, you will most likely kill someone.  That decision to be judge, jury and excutioner may be a split second one and unless you are totally comfortable with living with it, you had better think twice about carrying a gun.

Please do not get me wrong.  I am not saying that there are specific instances where you may have to protect yourself.  If someone is threatening to kill you or someone else and killing them is the ONLY way to stop them, then you must do what you have to do.  On the other hand if there is ANY other option short of killing the person, you ought to seek it first.  What I am afraid of is the wild west mentality some people have of shoot first and ask questions later.  As my father taught me many years ago, once you pull that trigger you cannot get the bullet back.  It is an irreversible decision and you will have to live with the consequences.

I used to carry a concealed weapon for protection.  When I did, I was always a little on edge.  I never was comfortable.  I knew there was a potential I would have to make a decision to kill someone.  I decided to not carry a gun anymore.  I have not been able to come to grips with the chance I might kill someone, even if that means I might be killed myself. 




Grendel -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 12:23:51 PM)

Thank you Father Bug.




Bughawk -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 12:28:29 PM)

Anytime Grendel.  Always a pleasure.




Grendel -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 1:01:53 PM)

No seriously...I think your reflections are what a lot of people should do.  The decision to carry is HUGE.  The lives of many hang on the decision to shoot or not to shoot.  In the very least PA should require people to attend a firearms course before issuing carry permits.  Not a very popular notion on my part, but it may open a few eyes as to some realities of life.

So, really,,,thank you for sharing your ideas/thoughts/reservations.  I wish more would be honest about them

Doc




MuskyMastr -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 1:35:18 PM)

If you are not prepared to take a life to protect your own or your families, or prepared to live with the aftermath of taking a life.....don't carry.




Bughawk -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 1:35:54 PM)

I agree with you about attending a firearms course before issuing a carry permit.  I was fortunate to have several people in my life over the years who were in law enforcement and gave me some of their insights and a limited amount of training.  It was very valuable to me.  They definitely helped me.

I believe we all should be honest about how we feel.




Over the Hill -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 2:15:46 PM)

According to the news reports today, the decision allows for possession of a firearm in the home. Watch how certain lawmakers will try to ban the transportation of a firearm unlawful. IE: going to target practice, hunting, attending a safety course, etc.......

A person's right to carry is a personal decision. I like the way our laws are set up now for CCW. Background checks, no convictions for serious crimes, etc... CCW is a huge responsability.

I really don't like to get into "what if" scenarios, but, I wonder if my friend Lee was carrying CCW if he would have had a different outcome.




Carpet Bagger -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 3:31:58 PM)

Believe me condemming legal gun ownership is a terrible idea...allows those with the illegal firearms to have all the more advantage...

Good stand by the Supreme Court.  I applaud their decision....

As stated above a gun is no toy, lots of responsibility in owning, especially if you have kids.  Educate yourself and your kids on the dangers of fire arms and proper care, treatment, and handling of a firearm...one of the best things I ever did was retake the hunter safety course.





spoonchucker -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 4:12:47 PM)

What the court ruled, is that there is a fundamental right to gun OWNERSHIP. Justice Scalia ( as conservative as you will ever get ) acknowledged in his opinion that it is a fundamental right, but NOT exempt to restiction. The ruling leaves intact laws concerning licensing, background checks, limitations on legal possesion ( schools, govt. buildings, etc. ), and even allows for denial of this right to certain individuals, ( felons, the mentally ill, or incapacitated ).

It is a LONG overdue ruling, which protects responsible ownership by law abiding citizens, while still permitting regulations for the protection of public saftey.

It also takes away, one of the Republican's favorite boogey men. They can no longer scare you that the Democratic candidate will come in the night, and take your guns.




rapala11 -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 4:20:16 PM)

It also takes away, one of the Republican's favorite boogey men. They can no longer scare you that the Democratic candidate will come in the night, and take your guns.

true.  i think what bothered me is how close the vote really was.  i have been to three guns shows in my life, where used guns are sold without background checks and the buyers were downright scary.  had the high court ruled the other way, these buyers would have ruled the streets. 




spoonchucker -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 4:33:05 PM)

Yes,

But do you not agree that leaving the door open to some restrictions, which might close the loopholes, and possibley eliminate ( or greatly reduce ) the scenarios you described, is equally important?




rapala11 -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 4:34:25 PM)

absolutely.




CATMAN610 -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 5:51:30 PM)

Hmmm like I said here maybe a month or two ago,,no one is gonna take away our guns.
If anything this should make the NRA look like a-holes for all the fear mongering they do around election time.
Here was a chance for them to rule against gun owners and they did not,,too bad that old geezer Charlton Heston wasn't around to see this he could of went backk to Columbine and had another rally.

btw,,,I own 6 guns so I'm not unhappy with this outcome.




spoonchucker -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 5:56:21 PM)

Rap,

From my post on another thread:

I would not be concerned about the close vote, or the future make up of the court. Precendents stand in all but the most extreme cases. The court very seldom agrees to even HEAR challenges to precedents, let alone overturns them. Even those who dissented in this case would be very unlikely to vote to hear a challenge to it, now that it has been set.

This ruling, as well as the majority opinion by justice Scalia ( who I have some issues with ), is the best that could probabley ever come out of this case. It was great in MY opinion. It eliminates the fears of the two extremes. It establishes once, and for all the right to INDIVIDUAL gun ownership, yet doesn't extend it to "any gun, any where, any time". It pushes the issue back to the center, where we hopefully can adress the NEEDS, though probabley not the DESIRES, of both sides.




S-10 -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 6:04:41 PM)

Catman610---  NRA Fear mongering--are you nuts---Look what they were trying to do in D.C.---then look how close the Superme court came to allowing them to get away with it. D.C.'s laws still make you keep long guns disassembled or locked which renders them useless in a self protection issue. You better not believe the anti gunners will just go quietly away. This was a great ruling but the liberals will continue to chip away wherever they can and there are still lots of ways to make it harder to own one in an attempt to discourage gun ownership. A 5-4 ruling on what should have been a no brainer is really scary. 




CATMAN610 -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 6:09:01 PM)

Someone tell the NRA its working.




S-10 -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 6:47:12 PM)

Be you a Troll--nut--or anti gun Liberal not much sense in continuing this with you.[:'(]




S-10 -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 7:05:45 PM)

For anyone interested---Washington officials promised swift action to rework their laws to strictly regulate handguns while complying with the ruling. It will be interesting to see their definition of (strictly regulating). Remember --it was those (fear mongering) NRA folks that stopped Mayor Nagin from confiscating the guns from home owners after Katrina. [:)]




jackq -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 7:55:02 PM)

A few years ago (Probably longer than that.) wasn't there a city in Maryland, I don't recall which one, that didn't outlaw gun ownership, they outlawed ammunition ownership. Hmmmm......a gun with no ammo, might as well have a rock!!!




rapala11 -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 9:14:22 PM)

spoon, thanks.




S-10 -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 9:33:04 PM)

Jackq-- a lot of cities have banned amminition in the past and about a dozen are trying it at the present. I don't know of any that have survived a court challenge. San Francisco banned both guns and ammo but I think it was overturned and they are now trying to get some sort of ammo ban passed.




S-10 -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/26/2008 9:44:39 PM)

What you may be thinking about is a bill being tried in Maryland, Illinois, Indiana , and a couple other states that requires encoding every shell and puts a nickel tax on every bullet including 22 cal. It would effectly eliminate all reloading and make it cost prohibitive to buy any ammo. It's just another back door attempt to ban firearm ownership. Like or hate the NRA, the organization is the only one with enough money and clout, thanks to it's members, to keep on top of all this B.S.




RIZ -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/27/2008 9:37:05 AM)

what's still scary is that 4 liberal justices voted to take away our constitutional rights.  what happens if a liberal president comes along an puts in a 5th liberal judge?




rapala11 -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/27/2008 10:09:31 AM)

riz, i believe the honorable justice stevens was appointed initially to a circuit by nixon and to the supreme court by reagan, both staunch libs...lol




Over the Hill -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/27/2008 2:02:23 PM)

A few years ago I was in a sporting goods store in NJ. They had a great price on a box of ammunition. I wanted to purchase it, was told to give a photo ID, and they would record my drivers license number to the manufacturer's code on the carton. Registered ammo! What's next? People getting a GPS microchip under their skin in order to purchase a firearm? Paying a $25 background check to purchase a $1.99 box of .22's? Where does it end?





RIZ -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/27/2008 2:33:18 PM)

even though your wrong about who appointed stevens to SC, what's your point?  stevens ia a liberal and votes liberal.  my point is if another liberal gets appointed in say kennedy's place, who is a little more maderate than liberal, what happens to future gun rights if it comes up before the SC.  an no presedent does not matter to a SC liberal judge when they have a chance to set presedent or make law.  because the inital presedent was no limitations to any of the  Bill of Rights.  if a spot opens up on the SC with obama and a liberal senate, what kind of judge will get the nod?  i guarantee it will be a gingsburg clone.




spoonchucker -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/27/2008 2:41:16 PM)

Riz,

Precedent DOES matter. The supreme court, virtually never even agrees to HEAR challrenges to precedents, let alone overturns them.




spoonchucker -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/27/2008 2:46:21 PM)

In another less noted case, the supreme court reduced punitive damages from the Exxon Valdez spill, from $2.5 billion, to $500 million. The vote was 5-3, with I believe Scalia abstaining. What a bunch of "liberal whackos".

"Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, about $500 million compensation."

There is NO law stating such, but I'll be conservatives have no problem with THIS sort of legislating from the bench.




Over the Hill -> RE: survived another scare......... (6/27/2008 3:09:48 PM)

I seen their decision to overturn the appeal on the news recently. In 2004, was originally for $4.5 billion PLUS $2.25 billion in interest. It sure does add to the theory that big money can get away with things.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



   

0.047