Supreme Court rules in favor of gun ownership rights
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_o…
Surprise, surprise. I guess the U.S. Supreme Court, actually 5 of the justices can read as well as clubber. :)
Surprise, surprise. I guess the U.S. Supreme Court, actually 5 of the justices can read as well as clubber. :)
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
40 comments
Well, it is another 5-4 decision so it is another "right" supposedly secured by the U.S. Constitution hanging by a thread.
BTW, I'm extremely biased in favor of gun rights.
I prefer everyone in a stripclub armed to the teeth especially with firearms. :)
The real issue should be does the Constitution actually protect gun ownership? Not what is "best" for the country or community.
I believe the original thread where this issue arose was on topic and the issue of gun rights in that thread as it relates to sexual rights was also on topic.
Unfortunately, that was an old thread. This merely continues the on topic conversation regarding basic rights: sexual, gun ownership, speech, jury trial, etc. etc. etc. as they relate to each other and as they are recognized or ignored by the government.
"precedent" is a sick joke regardless of the decision just as "rule of law" is a sick joke
I think and I may be 100% wrong, that the French concept of precedent is much more honest and delivers better administration of law. The American precedent BS uses depublished and nonpublished opinions so that unless you're an insider, usually a very elite attorney, it would be impossible to know the *real* law i.e. controlling precedent. That isn't the major problem with American precedent, however, judicial dishonesty and corruption is.
I love those who yap about judicial activism whether they know what it means or not----way to go brothers!!! LOL! :)
Perhaps because the other 4 justices strongly believe in life over individual rights? Supposedly, gun free societies are a panacea. One interesting comparison is the gun deaths per 100,000 people in the U.S. compared to England. It is a trade-off.
Some people would like to get rid of the automobile to save lives. Others would like to ban red meats. Bottom line is the government knows best in their opinion and we should have the ruling elite make a mountain of laws to control and intimidate.
The other 5 justices probably don't understand our fundamental right to engage in adult activities with other consenting adults. Crimes and rights and laws are mere opinions, but when government is unbound they become lethal weapons to life and liberty as well as mere opinions.
Is there a fundamental right to assemble in a stripclub and enjoy the company of like minded individuals? Some say YES and others say NO. Usually, those who say NO yap about crime or drugs or violence. Always a good excuse to curtail freedom in the name of more government power.
I'm licensed to carry in 28+ states, but cannot in my home state. Illinois has the most regressive gun laws in the nation. But the DC decision gives me hope that things will get better here.
What gave me the most perverse joy was watching that shit-bag Mayor Dailey rant like a lunatic on the news. He has armed body guards, yet the thought of his constituents having the means to defend themselves makes him soil his shorts. I think his media appearances have given the public a glimpse into how fanatical he is on this issue. Hopefully common sense will prevail and we will see CCW permits on a shall issue basis in Illinois very soon.
I'm 100% pro-guns, but I'm not sure the slim majority was correct. The concern I have is the words "well regulated" and if this text has any limiting effect. "Militia" would simply, imo, mean all able bodied competent males generally between the ages of 18 and 60.
The Ninth Amendment might have been a good supporting amendment to cite. The enumeration of some rights can unfortunately be used as deny the existance of others. And, a cramped reading of an amendment can accomplish the same distortion. The Bill of Rights was supposed to be a limitation on the power of government and not a celebration of it----something that big government types who claim to support the Constitution should try and remember.
"I have to agree with TUSCL_brother. It saddens me that 4 of the judges voted against what should have been a simple ruling in favor of 2A rights."
What is much more saddening, imo, is it seems like ALL 9 of 'em don't understand the words: "shall not be infringed." They'd much rather play legislator than be bound by law. :(
Those who yap about all the supposed freedom need to understand how arbitrary application of "law" can be and as such freedom is very weak. Sort of amusing is that in a country with supposedly so many freedoms just enjoying a simple activity like stripclubbing at small family type clubs is so restricted and attacked by government. Worse, to most if there is a single club that somehow proves that stripclubbing isn't restricted and attacked by government----- what's the big deal that the other 10 stripclubs along W. Dixie Hwy were closed by the governments filth of law? :( Well, what's the big deal if government so attacked and restricted alcoholic beverages that instead of having thousands of different types or brands of beer available there were only five? Freedom of the most valuable kind: Bill of Rights type freedom i.e. freedom from government.
Gambling dancer's male relatives are generally violent. Given the way she is raising her little boy, I'm afraid he will also end up a violent man. It is a shame because he is a wonderful little boy. At Discount Auto, I very much appreciated the employee speaking up in defense of the little boy. (I've bitten my tongue more than a few times because I thought coming from me it would make matters worse for a number of reasons.) Gambling dancer was in the empolyee's face instantly--he didn't back down, but I wish he had been more forceful.
Against this backdrop of her violent male relatives Gambling dancer wanted to know what I would do if one showed to cause trouble. I explained that if need be and if I got the opportunity, then there are guns and other weapons in my home and I would be forced to use them. She was shocked that I had or would use a gun and even said that I wouldn't shoot. I told her that she kept forgetting that I was born and raised in the South----her whole attitude changed to a more somber note.
Probably most people would be shocked to learn that supposedly conservative judges are even proud that they have the scholarly discipline to ignore the plain language of a law in favor of court precedents. This is something to be proud of?! Well, after years of being indoctrinated it shouldn't be surprising that silly and stupid ideas are parroted by lawyers and judges as if they were absolute truths.
I was watching a professor of Constitutional law, I think it was a segment on CNN, and he was explaing how the published opinions on the 4th Amendment didn't match the reality that attorneys faced in court. He claimed to have researched 1,500 competently prepared motions to suppress and found that only 7 of those motions were granted. In effect the 4th Amendment was viewed as a total *private* joke by the government's judges. Or, maybe the professor of law is way off base?
I researched around a 1,000 cases involving petitions for certiorari, involving the driver license law, before the appellate division of the circuit court. Only 7 of these cases said anything but DENIED. One attorney whose petition was DENIED begged the court for some reasoning because his client had spent so much money. The court lowered itself to giving a case. The case wasn't even on point. :( The only well done and well researched court opinion that gave true justice made it seem like the court was this great intellectual defender of Constitutional freedoms when in fact the court was extremely lazy and corrupt----some freedoms. :(
No one threw that line back at Scalia in the guns case. But Justice John Paul Stevens, also summarizing his dissent in court, said of Scalia's majority opinion on gun rights that 'adherence to a policy of judicial restraint by this court is far wiser than the bold decision it announced today.'"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_o…
Scalia is an amusing judge, imo-----and yet I keep hearing that he is brilliant. Too bad that none of the other judges threw Scalia's words back at him. He needs some good intellectual slaps to the head. If the judicial standard is that rights can be taken away if doing so would in theory or in fact save American lives, then completely gutting the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments would be laudatory. IMO, he is just another judicial moron. :)
Just watching CNN and one of the legal experts---I think he was a law professor---says the recent 2nd Amendment decision only applies to "federal citizens." :) Therefore, the NRA is not going to have a "cake-walk" with its recently filed lawsuits in San Franciscio and Chicago.
The term "federal citizens" very much caught my ear. I think the law professor is *truly reaching* if he actually believes that the 2nd Amendment will apply to "federal citizens" and not individuals residing in States. However, this is such a corrupt country that that might truly be the fraud. Make the masses believe they have real 2nd Amendment rights while the protecting it only for "federal citizens." LOL! :) The other law professor believed the Supreme Court will apply the 2nd Amendment broadly and that is *unlikely* to be applied to just DC residents.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
Indeed! Anyone that knows anything at all about the law already knew that this was true.
The other issue, which I don't know how they settled exactly, was about the fact that D.C. wasn't a state and therefore, maybe, couldn't have the same rights as the states do to pass laws limiting gun access. This recent decision isn't going to be as far reaching as all the gun nuts would like...real common sense gun laws will survive just fine tyvm.
But now, the goddamn NRA is going to flood the courts with lawsuits claiming thet they're entitled to their rights, and entitled to their rights right now. The judiciary system is already backlogged with murders and white-collar crime, and now they have to deal with this fringe issue so that people can play cowboy out in public? Give me a fucking break.
Actually, I think it was about 18 months ago The Herald had a front page story on how the federal district court in Miami was EMPTY. The article had these poor pathetic federal judges wimpering that they had NO work.
and all really liberal areas.
Perhaps liberalism causes crime.
Or what shouldn't be a crime is labeled so more quickly in a liberal area.
Hi deogol,
The conservatives that I knew growing up were small government live and let live convservatives. Although these conservative were generally prudes and went to church every Sunday they didn't have any problem with stripclubs or generally with other vices as long as children weren't involved.
Liberals were the ones that wanted more laws to close stripclubs and basically command people to do this or that or face incarceration, fines, and branding as a criminal. Liberals just loved the power of government thinking its purpose was to control your neighbors thoughts and actions.
Unfortunately, it seems like in government liberals are generally significantly more intelligent than conversatives; thus, the conservatives learned to love more government as much or more than liberals. Heck, conservatives even got it into their pea brains that closing down stripclubs and other moralizing was the job of government.
So, yes I would love to agree with you that liberalism not only causes crime (by passing a mountain of laws) and also labels that which shouldn't be a crime a crime (self-defense as well as gun ownership), the conversatives have, imo, become just as bad or worse than liberals. Their a tag-team with relatively little difference it seems as far as wanting more government and more laws.
Heck, one of the many things liberals and conservatives can probably agree on is closing stripclubs! :(
LOL! :) Like one lawsuit or so per unconstitutional law is such a strain on America's prison state.
In order to reduce the workload caused by these handful or lawsuits the two-bit government could just scale back on its stripclub raids. :)
In order to reduce the workload caused by these handful or so lawsuits the two-bit government could just scale back on its stripclub raids. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen…
The way that fat nutjob Wayne LaPerriere (or however the hell you spell his last name) tells is, he's going to get his goons to inundate the local, state and federal courts challenging lawsuits even lightly restricting weapons. And I wouldn't put it past him or his good ol' boys. As I said before, there are more important and more pressing things the judicial system has to do.
I will, however, agree with you when it comes to scaling back on its stripclub raids. Unlike guns, innocent people are not involved!
It's not a question of trust. For a long time courts were using bogus research in family law cases---not just citing---a research report that was latter admitted to be faked by the "respected" author who had a political agenda. I didn't see anything wrong with the courts citing the research--it was a resource; assuming it was true and correct, I thought was brain-dead. Finally, after many many years that resource was discredited. Unfortunately, mere citing can be seen as supporting.
BTW, even if the information cited is correct that the text was of the 2nd Amendment was *supposed* to be inserted between other clear individual rights doesn't, imo, mean it was regarded as an individual right. Perhaps the reason it wasn't inserted with the other individual rights is precisely because there was controversy over whether it *properly* was an individual right amongst the drafters. Or, it may *if true* have some other significance.
I've read repeatedly, *doesn't make it true*, that one or more of the original drafts of the 1st Amendment specifically referred to State(s) as well as Congress shall pass NO law . . . and, there was debate about whether States should be handcuffed in the same manner as Congress, if true, that is very significant, imo.
I quoted what I thought was interesting, if true. Too often the debate isn't about what the text actually means it is about what one would like it to mean. I'm very biased in favor of a certain reading of the 2nd Amendment, but I'm aware of that bias. The Supreme Court's 5-4 opinion doesn't make me more sure about its true meaning because my trust of the institution is ZERO.
Unfortunately, I've read, again *doesn't make it true*, that there is a high correlation between having stripclubs and "anti-social" behaviour that that harms "innocents." Thus, if "innocents" is *your* benchmark then raiding stripclubs may be something you should be supporting 100%! :(
At to the correctness of certain official reports and news information: Recently the FDA warned consumers about an outbreak of salmonella in raw tomatoes. My kneejerk reaction was to trust the FDA because there isn't an obvious reason to create fear among tomato consumers; thus, I believed the tomatoes were the source of the salmonella. And, also I had believed the science for recognizing such tainted tomatoes was fairly straightforward: not an area for controversy.
Anyway, I was watching CNN and it was very interesting. A reporter who supposedly questioned the health experts originally about whether tomatoes were the source says at the time she was repeatedly assured it was the tomatoes. Now, it is being reported it may not be the tomatoes at all. The poor farmers and merchants and consumers who were injured by the original official government report blaming tomatoes may have been innocent victims of who knows what incompetence, arrogance, etc.
I don't know the science. *I had assumed* that it should be fairly easy to determine whether tomatoes are tainted with salmonella to a dangerous degree.
Perhaps we have more people than you do, or perhaps you're just an idiot..."self-defense" has never been outlawed in this country.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25463844
There was nothing unique about that year — gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25463844
Shootings at Angels, Coco's, and RolLexx means that the law should ban guns at these locations? And, if that hasn't worked then the clubs should be closed?
Well, both would generally be supported by liberals and conservatives, imo. Funny, that in a supposedly free country that more freedom wouldn't be seen as the answer. That people don't remember the days when self-defense was allowed and guns were very common.
"...'self-defense' has never been outlawed in this country." Much worse it was highly discouraged by a corrupt court system where you literally had to prove that fleeing from danger wasn't an option. After enough of this filth by the corrupt courts the Florida legislature finally changed the law so that one could stand their ground without some attorneys second guessing them while minting "reasonable attorneys' fees" for their disservice to the individual and larger community.
I personally believe in retreating generally----now, that doesn't apply to my own home because that is my area of refuge. As to whether it should apply to other areas really should be up to the individual because letting some thugs with or without weapons bully you or others would imo decrease safety for everyone. When I spoke about a belief in retreating generally my thinking was along the lines of letting tempers cool with a safe smart retreat. That thinking shouldn't be applied to bullies and thugs; and NO the police or more police aren't the answer. The solution is for ordinary joes who I believe vastly out number the "bad" guys to stand their ground as in the old days.
Bottom line in the current environment stripclubs would be much safer under the old rules where guns are freely carried and used when necessary.
"As to whether it should apply to other areas really should be up to the individual"
Would you rather we just have people shooting other people with no accountability? This is NOT the Old West, and there are plenty of us out here that aren't going to let the NRA turn it back into the Old West or "the old days".
You guys happy with that "2 percent" number? It doesn't seem to justify an overly-armed populace to me. No trigger locks...Columbine II here we come...
I wonder how many suicides there were in total for 2005? Of the ones who chose to use a firearm, how many would have found another way if that firearm were unavailable? I suspect most of them would. Suicide is about ending "pain" not the method. You don't see people clammoring to ban rope or perscription drugs.
Actually, I don't trust the 2% number even a tad. Here in Miami-Dade County, The Herald gave precinct by precinct voting results many years ago in a close race county wide by two heavy weights. It was something like 1502 votes for candidate A and 6 votes for candidate B in *one* precinct. Those numbers were just too EXTREME as is the 2% number cited for ***"legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent."***
Decades and decades ago a former sheriffs deputy was telling me about a situtation of ongoing mass murder that caused him to resign from his job. It was racial and the victims weren't from his area. Because it was impossible to solve the crimes and more importantly they didn't want to solve them the murders were labelled suicides. I have NO idea of what he meant by mass murders, but it sounded like in the hundreds at the very least and was enough to make him flee for his *own safety*. He wasn't worried about being killed--the police were on good terms with the local residents, blacks and whites, according to him. He was concerned about an investigation into all the phoney suicides of which he played a significant unwilling part in the "conspiracy." He thought telling the truth would have been understandable because there was NO way for a tiny police force to investigate all the murders. Hatred for the federal government was the alleged reason for the cover-up. The official yearly police numbers showed suicides as being responsible for 99% or some such ridiculously high number for deaths in that county. He always thought that absurd number would catch someone's notice.
I had always believed that the guns in my house might someday be used to end my life (definitely not a large loss, imho). Either the depression or constant pain would just become too much. I did seek help for the pain from a doctor who is supposed to be a "pill pusher" i.e. he believes in treating pain with medicine according to my pharmacist buddy. She was shocked he wouldn't prescribe me painkillers because I'm in real pain---and she knows who is very liberal about writing prescriptions. Believe it or not just getting Drixoral is a problem. Only ***ONE*** stupid box allowed--with government ID and forms to fill out--and that store isn't allowed to sell anymore until 2009. CVS was the same BS with government ID, and forms and only ONE stupid box. Another old man wanted his Drixoral and the pharmacist gave him the same bad news---no more restocking of Drixoral until 2009.
Well, the stripclubs do provide some relief, but popping a Drixoral every 12 hours is cheaper and much more effective! Yes, I've tried the Drixoral "clones" and it turns out a tiny number of patients including me have problems with those. The other old man only wanted Drixoral too, so I wonder how tiny that number truly is.