High court to define if gun rights apply to states

[Father of four]

The injustice of taking away citizens freedom are happening all the time. In my city limits I can have a loaded magazine in my house but if I walk off my property I will get fined for having a loaded mag or clip within city limits. Bye Bye freedom!

 

[SSG]

I would like the right buy ammunition....if I could find some....

 

[elkfish]

Very lively debate and a great example of what makes the USA different from all other nations. We as a people have the right to forcefully with arms over through our government but we do not. It is that simple. We instead make the choice to work through a sometimes long and cumbersome system to make change and accept the rule of the majority when necessary.

But there is always a but; we have the obligation to stay involved in the process! If we stop and no longer make our vote or point of view known we become and ineffective minority who when necessary no longer has a place at the table. The Chicago case is and example of this. Without organized groups like the NRA, OFF, OHA and others who still in the light of defeat after defeat had not maintained through involvement and activism a legitimate place at the political table change would not happen. Justice would not be served. If on the other hand they would have started an armed movement to force their will they would have been long ago marginalized, transient, and ineffective. The United States would be no less than all the other 3rd world places where the will of the gun decides who is in power. Change through the process brings along fast or slow the rest of society. I am not saying in the face of tyranny resistance is not necessary I am saying the bar is very very high for this. Once done rule is returned to the people.

I am including a link to the ORIGINAL transcripts of the March 02 Chicago case and I encourage everyone to read it.

Before you throw around the threat of revolution and armed this and armed that be sure you have thrown around excuse me sir, may I have a moment of our time to talk about gun rights, more.

<broken link removed>



Elkfish

:drink::drink:

 

[Father of four]

Take a look at this...

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems..

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... Is up to you.

This might be funny if it weren't so darned true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ***.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the **** happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?

 

[bugeye]

Hmm, another example is how Oregon voted YES for assisted suicide. I believe 3 times. Each time it passed, yet some person at the federal level decided that it wasn't legal for a state to do this. Hmm....

Of course, neither of these issues are in the US Constitution.

Thus, you would have to examine the individual state constitution to see if it allows a city, to supersede a state law. Yes, there are states where a City can overrule state laws. I believe, Illinois happens to be one of them.

Cool, good point, to elaborate the US attorney general departments used a provision of a anti recreational drug bill passed by the congress to put the block on Oregon's law. It is clear that not a single congressperson ever even dreamed that this anti drug bill could have expanded and subverted to be used for such an exclusion. Again, we aren't talking sense here, or unalienable rights, we are talking law.

Now Chicago banned handguns only, so it wasn't like they banned all guns, and currently there are many federal, state, and local laws that ban some sorts of weapons in particular areas. There have to be some limits to the 2nd based on a reasonable consideration for the safety of the public. Look at the limits on the first amendment for some practical legal limits.

Yes, I get it that this law did little to slow the alternative criminal gun distrubution network in Chicago, a stupid law that can only be defended by "Yeah but criminals have to pay $50 more for a handgun in Chicago". The thing is if the supreme court alters this case of local rights then you can rest assured that they will take no responsiblitly whatsoever for this decision. Am I the only one who has ever noticed that when ever we let the non responsible make decisions it seldom goes well?

 

[Outrider]

When do we hear the courts answer?

I believe the Supreme Court typically starts hearing new cases in the beginning of October and winds things up around June. There's nothing to say they could not announce a decision earlier, but June is when you should expect to hear something.

Personally, I'm expecting the total ban on handguns to be struck down, but they'll let the state and local government regulate how and where people can carry firearms outside of the home, maintain a gun registry, mandate minimum requirements to be allowed to own or possess a firearm, etc. -Total prohibition seemed to be the big thing they harped on in Heller as going too far. They were clearly willing to let other gun laws stand.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Concerning mob rule and the 2nd A,... I believe it was Franklin that said:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.

The problem arises however when the lamb is deemed a criminal or terrorist due to laws of questionable Constitutionality.
And as for the SCOTUS deciding what is best for us, try to remember that they are only able to do so within the constructs put forth in the Constitution and the BoR. That is where and when the constitutionality of a given law comes into question, and the ONLY guidelines they are SUPPOSED to consider.
That is why, of all the choices a President must make, I believe his or her nominees to the SCOTUS are the most important, and should be of considerable importance when one picks a candidate to vote for.
In this regard I believe GWB did a great job, and Clinton not so much. IMO Ginsberg is a whack job!

 

[SSG]

This isn't about gun control it's about the federal govt telling a state what to do...

We have states that are talking about succession(Texas) so this supreme court ruling could actually be about getting the states in line with the feds....

 

[fletcher]

To end the thread jack:

OFF posted the transcripts of the oral arguments. I am not well versed in the happenings of the supreme court, and it's hard to pick up voice intonation and all other non-verbal indications, but the attorney for McDonald sounds like an idiot who can't keep to the topic, or answer the questions directly. I haven't gotten too far into it, but I hope it gets better for the McDonald side.

 

[bugeye]

Concerning mob rule and the 2nd A,... I believe it was Franklin that said:
The problem arises however when the lamb is deemed a criminal or terrorist due to laws of questionable Constitutionality.
And as for the SCOTUS deciding what is best for us, try to remember that they are only able to do so within the constructs put forth in the Constitution and the BoR. That is where and when the constitutionality of a given law comes into question, and the ONLY guidelines they are SUPPOSED to consider.
That is why, of all the choices a President must make, I believe his or her nominees to the SCOTUS are the most important, and should be of considerable importance when one picks a candidate to vote for.
In this regard I believe GWB did a great job, and Clinton not so much. IMO Ginsberg is a whack job!

The two Bush nominees that you love about a month ago voted with 3 other repub nominees in deciding that corporations are under no legal limits in playing a part in elections. As if our elected officals hadn't sold out enough at this time. I'm sorry, that decision has nothing to do with the constitution as that document in no place assures corporations the rights of super individuals. This is simple activist judges setting up a playing field so justice is the interests of the stronger party.

 

[clearconscience]

We wrote into our Constitution that by God we are givent he right to bear arms. It doesn't say the right to bear a musket, the right to bear a cannon, the right to bear a pistol......We are afforded the God given right to bear arms in anyway, with any gun. Period. Any law saying otherwise should be in violation of the Constitution and whoever signs that into law should be imprisoned for treason.

I am sickened when I hear a state has taken away a person's right to have a firearm...Of any kind.
In Detroit a person cannot own a Handgun. You can own a shotgun/rifle, but not a Handgun.

If my state/city etc said that to me, I would move out of the state.

This is ridiculous. Those rights were given to us to prevent the type of thing that's happening daily in the U.S.
I am praying I can come up with some money soon so I can buy an AR and a case of ammo. I don't think it will happen anytime soon and that scares me. I had to sell my AR because I needed the money and it was the biggest mistake I've made in my life.