The Supreme Court has voted to limit the ability of local jurisdictions to ban the private ownership and possession of handguns. This basically means that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed our Second Amendment rights.

I will be interested to see if and how this ruling impacts Massachusetts handgun laws. Even though MA does not ban handguns (as they do in the city of Chicago), licensing is fully at the sole discretion of the local police chief. What this amounts to is unequal application of the law since if you have two equally qualified individuals one might be granted a license and the other not simply due to the town they live in and the disposition of local law enforcement.

I wonder if this ruling can be used as a precedent to outlaw such an arbitrary process and put a more equal application of the law in place for law-abiding MA citizens.

Not sure. These rulings seem to indicate that states and cities can certainly uphold limitations on firearms, but can't ban them completely.

I'd note that they didn't end the Chicago ban, but told the lower court to revisit their earlier decision. How this ultimately gets implemented is still in question, but the message was clear none the less.

-spence

Paul, we were talking about this exact thing at the office. It seems like the USSC has definitely helped reaffirm our Second Amendment rights, but a lot of the details are left open.

What came to mind for me is the former police chief of Quincy and his hard stance against residents owning handguns.

I'm right there with you - curious to see if/how this pans out, but in a liberal state like MA, I'm not holding my breath.

Paul
It seems like the USSC has definitely helped reaffirm our Second Amendment rights, but a lot of the details are left open.


.

actually, 5-4 ....some on the court reaffirmed the Second Amendment and some others made it plain that they have little regard for it and I'm sure the rest of the Constitution and it's other Ammendments...the Kelo decision also comes to mind ...now....would you care to guess which were which? Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. ...... and will Obama once again berate the Supremes publically?, afterall the majority "stupidly" disagreed with his brilliant appointee ?

another Obama bud..."Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says he's disappointed by Monday's Supreme Court decision that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live."

actually, 5-4 ....some on the court reaffirmed the Second Amendment and some others made it plain that they have little regard for it and I'm sure the rest of the Constitution and it's other Ammendments...the Kelo decision also comes to mind ...now....would you care to guess which were which? Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. ...... and will Obama once again berate the Supremes publically?, afterall the majority "stupidly" disagreed with his brilliant appointee ?

another Obama bud..."Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says he's disappointed by Monday's Supreme Court decision that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live."

So your answer to my question from the other thread:
It really is impossible for you to not turn every single post into something about Obama huh?is yes.

So your answer to my question from the other thread:
is yes.

the people that you abhor idealogically for the most part just "definitely helped reaffirm our(your) Second Amendment rights"...the people that you seem to lean toward politically don't give a rat's ass about your second amendment rights, it's a little contradictory...that's all I'm sayin'...and there's another one of Your People in the confirmation process currently who would side with the minority in this case nominated by the guy that you voted for....it's all related to OBAMA AT THE MOMENT

the people that you abhor idealogically for the most part just "definitely helped reaffirm our(your) Second Amendment rights"...the people that you seem to lean toward politically don't give a rat's ass about your second amendment rights, it's a little contradictory...that's all I'm sayin'...and there's another one of Your People in the confirmation process currently who would side with the minority in this case nominated by the guy that you voted for....it's all related to OBAMA AT THE MOMENT

How little of a clue you have about my political philosophy is very apparent. However, I'm not going to high-jack Sweetwater's thread and get into yet another pissing match instigated by you.

On topic, after reading more about this ruling, I think the effects will be widespread. Chicago is already looking to put similar restrictions in place like DC did after it's ban was lifted, like banning all handguns that can own a clip and making applicants jump through major hoops and spend a lot of dough in order to get their license.

Striking down the DC and now the Chicago bans are the Constitutionally correct choices.

How little of a clue you have about my political philosophy is very apparent. However, I'm not going to high-jack Sweetwater's thread and get into yet another pissing match instigated by you.

On topic, after reading more about this ruling, I think the effects will be widespread. Chicago is already looking to put similar restrictions in place like DC did after it's ban was lifted, like banning all handguns that can own a clip and making applicants jump through major hoops and spend a lot of dough in order to get their license.

Striking down the DC and now the Chicago bans are the Constitutionally correct choices.

JD, it's not just a pissing match. It is absolutely critical to understand how thin the support for Constitutionally correct choices is. And in this regard , at this time in our history, it is very much about Obama and who he chooses for the Supreme Court. His first appointment, in this decision, voted Constitutionally incorrectly. His pending second appointment appears to be similarly disposed. These two will be replacements for like-minded judges. If he is re-elected, he may get the chance to change the balance of the Court so that the majority will, on this type of issue, decide differently.

A small step in the right direction. There will be more cases to go before the courts to define the rulings of McDonald and Heller. What is upsetting is that the decision was 5-4 in both cases. They are about your constitutional right. This is not given to you by the government! If the Supremes were actually working on strict constitutional law it should be 9-0. It is Ironic how our forefathers felt the only other right that was more important than the second was the first. One and two should not be messed with. What would happen if the pissing contests were called of by the Government? Just my 2 cents.

Vic

the way i see the issue is, there is nothing wrong with our right to bear arms

guns don't commit crimes, people do

I see those who wish to ban guns as taking the lazy way out. much like the state workers at Scussett locking the gates at the east end instead of dealing with any issues with allowing access. The justice system needs to deal with lawbreakers who have illegal guns.

the more armed citizens there are to protect ourselves, the less likely to become a victim.

glad I live in a town that allows guns and does not discourage them.

One and two should not be messed with. What would happen if the pissing contests were called of by the Government? Just my 2 cents.

Vic

not all that far fetched actually.....

Obama Can Shut Down Internet For 4 Months Under New Emergency Powers

‘Kill switch’ bill approved, moves to Senate floor

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, June 25, 2010

President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday and now moves to the floor.

not all that far fetched actually.....

Obama Can Shut Down Internet For 4 Months Under New Emergency Powers

‘Kill switch’ bill approved, moves to Senate floor

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, June 25, 2010

President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday and now moves to the floor.

I am aware of the bill. Hopefully it will not make it off the floor. I hope the people of this country wake up! We are the ones who are responsible for putting the politicians in office. Not a big fan of either party at this point in time but, we need more repubs. in office. No checks and balance!

Vic

this thread is absolutely worthless w/o pics of gun porn

first appointment, in this decision, voted Constitutionally incorrectly.

If that's really the case then why was there ever a vote?

-spence

here ya go fishweewee

I/G showing off my Mossberg 590 and AK 47's :

Those were classics...

And we all know you took some without the trench...come on, let's have it :devil2: :hihi:

-spence

I put these up before? I don't remember....

nah.. no pics w/o the trench

I got a few new guns maybe I'll have her model them soon

If that's really the case then why was there ever a vote?

-spence

Why didn't you ask JohnnyD why he thinks striking down the DC and the Chicago bans are Constitutionally corrrect choices? And "if that's really the case" how would you characterize the minority opinion? Were the minority votes also Constitutionally correct? Is the Constitution merely a list of opinions that can be viewed by each judge through the filter of his/her own personal point of view? Is each judicial opinion, in its own special way, correct but out of favor simply because it was outnumbered? Is the Constitution just a bunch of words whose meanings change with the passage of time and with the changes of political regimes? Was the Constitution written for lawyers and judges to "interpret," or was it intended to be a simple, forthright document that can be understood by the ordinary citizen?

Is the Constitution merely a list of opinions that can be viewed by each judge through the filter of his/her own personal point of view? Is each judicial opinion, in its own special way, correct but out of favor simply because it was outnumbered? Is the Constitution just a bunch of words whose meanings change with the passage of time and with the changes of political regimes? Was the Constitution written for lawyers and judges to "interpret," or was it intended to be a simple, forthright document that can be understood by the ordinary citizen?
Yes.

-spence

"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

To Spence:

Is the Constitution merely a list of opinions that can be viewed by each judge through the filter of his/her own personal point of view?
Your "yes" answer is incorrect. The Constitution is not a list of opinions. It is the blueprint by which we are governed. Some judges may treat it as someone else's opinion which can be over-ruled by their own. This is called judicial activism. Such activism is outside of the blueprint and was not intended. Such activism is a usurpation of powers intended for other branches of government. It not only usurps those powers, it destroys the intended balance of power, making the Court THE governing branch, rather than the branch that checks the others against unconstitutional (legal) legislation.

Is each judicial opinion, in its own special way, correct but out of favor simply because it was outnumbered?
Your "yes" answer is inappropriate. Each judicial opinion cannot be correct in its own special way. It can only be correct if it follows the Constitution. It cannot, appropriately, change or abrogate the Constitution. It sometimes happens that the majority votes in contradistinction to the Constitution. This creates Constitutional change by judicial activism, which is incorrect. Constitutional change is only supposed to occur by ammendment or Constitutional Convention. Nor is it supposed to occur by Case Law precedent. If Legal Cases were decided in accordance with the Constitution, they would not invoke change. It is bad or Constitutionally incorrectly decided decisions that lead to bad or incorrect precedent that in turn lead to unconstitutional judicial decisions.

Is the Constitution just a bunch of words whose meanings change with the passage of time and with the changes of political regimes?
Your "yes" answer is, again, incorrect. The original meanings of the words that comprise the Constitution remain the same. New connotations and denotations of words spelled the same as those in the Constitution do not change or replace them in Court adjudication. The original meanings still pertain. Nor do the political, philosophical, social, or economic opinions of new regimes allow the Court to change the Constitution in order suit these whims.

Was the Constitution written for lawyers and judges to "interpret," or was it intended to be a simple, forthright document that can be understood by the ordinary citizen?[/QUOTE]

Your "yes" answer to this last portion is partially correct. The Constitution was intended to be easily understood by all. The language was not intended to be poured over, disected, parsed, and interpreted in differing ways.

Why didn't you ask JohnnyD why he thinks striking down the DC and the Chicago bans are Constitutionally corrrect choices? And "if that's really the case" how would you characterize the minority opinion? Were the minority votes also Constitutionally correct? Is the Constitution merely a list of opinions that can be viewed by each judge through the filter of his/her own personal point of view? Is each judicial opinion, in its own special way, correct but out of favor simply because it was outnumbered? Is the Constitution just a bunch of words whose meanings change with the passage of time and with the changes of political regimes? Was the Constitution written for lawyers and judges to "interpret," or was it intended to be a simple, forthright document that can be understood by the ordinary citizen?

Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution are interpretative... probably why few major decisions are voted 9-0.

I think the public hanging of child rapists and murderers would be Constitutionally acceptable and not conflict with the restriction of "cruel and unusual punishment". Others may disagree and perceive it as Unconstitutional.

The Constitution is a document which needs to be interpreted. I believe our Founding Fathers intentionally left the Constitution vague in some aspects to preserve the documents longevity and legitimacy as the country developed and changed.

If this were not the case, everything within the Constitution would have been written in clear, well-articulated detail. Should that have happened, the Constitution would not have stood up to the test of time as effectively as it has and it would now be an outdated, ineffective document that is discussed over a few days in History classes.

Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution are interpretative... probably why few major decisions are voted 9-0.

I think the public hanging of child rapists and murderers would be Constitutionally acceptable and not conflict with the restriction of "cruel and unusual punishment". Others may disagree and perceive it as Unconstitutional.

The Constitution is a document which needs to be interpreted. I believe our Founding Fathers intentionally left the Constitution vague in some aspects to preserve the documents longevity and legitimacy as the country developed and changed.

If this were not the case, everything within the Constitution would have been written in clear, well-articulated detail. Should that have happened, the Constitution would not have stood up to the test of time as effectively as it has and it would now be an outdated, ineffective document that is discussed over a few days in History classes.

that is progressive pablum JD, I think you need to reacquiant yourself with the Constitution :uhuh:

JohnnyD--firstly, your falling into the trap that nullifies your own assertion that "striking down the DC and the Chicago bans are Constitutionally correct choices" if you believe that judicial "interpretation" is based on personal opinion, especially opinion that is not Constitutionally based. Judicial opinions based on personal opinions make the Constitution moot.

Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution are interpretative... probably why few major decisions are voted 9-0.
The DECISIONS may be interpretive (rightly or wrongly), the CONSTITUTION is not.

I think the public hanging of child rapists and murderers would be Constitutionally acceptable and not conflict with the restriction of "cruel and unusual punishment". Others may disagree and perceive it as Unconstitutional.
You may argue that a punishment is or is not "cruel and unusual", but you may not disregard the Constitutional command against such punishment. Again, the decision may have shades of "interpretation", but the Constitutional statute is not nullilfied or changed.

The Constitution is a document which needs to be interpreted. I believe our Founding Fathers intentionally left the Constitution vague in some aspects to preserve the documents longevity and legitimacy as the country developed and changed.
The Constitution needs to be adhered to and applied, not interpreted. Judicial "interpretation" is supposed to be an application of and adherence to the Constitution. If said "interpretation" is based on personal whim, political orientation, views of "social justice" not contained in the Constitution, this results in an unauthorized change to the Constitution. The Constitution was not left vague. It was specifically clear in its mode and intent. It is was, as you say, meant to maintain longevity over time and change by its brief (not vague) adherence to natural law (especially human nature) and the pre-eminence of natural rights above government restrictions. It made clear how it could be changed. It did not provide for change by Court fiat or "interpretation."

If this were not the case, everything within the Constitution would have been written in clear, well-articulated detail. Should that have happened, the Constitution would not have stood up to the test of time as effectively as it has and it would now be an outdated, ineffective document that is discussed over a few days in History classes.

It was written in far clearer and intentionally limited detail than the ensuing muddy non-Constitutionally based opinions and decisions of activist judges. It will only stand the test of time if it is followed, not changed. Those who perceive it a living, breathing thing that evolves into permutations that destroy its original intentions (which they percieve to be outmoded and unapplicable to changing times and notions) will not follow it as written and the "change" will indeed make it an "ineffective document that is discussed over a few days in History classes"--if it is actually, really, and TRULY discussed at all.

Obama's view that the Constitution should be about what government should do rather than what it shouldn't do is exactly the activist "change" and ensuing destruction of the Constitution that I believe he meant, among other things, when he promised to fundamentally transform this nation. The Constitution is our foundation. His like minded appointments to the Supreme Court (and to lower Courts as well) will continue the progressive "change" that has been occuring to our fundamental law and governance.

The right to bear arms is clear and articulate. The Constitutionality of abortion is not. I should have stated that it's application requires interpretation... never said anything about interpretations should be"based on personal whim, political orientation, views of 'social justice'".

The right to bear arms is clear and articulate.apparently it is not for 4 current Supreme Court Justices and Mayor Daley The Constitutionality of abortion is not. actually it is, unless you engage in a radical interpretation of life "based on personal whim, political orientation, views of 'social justice'" I should have stated that it's application requires interpretation... never said anything about interpretations should be"based on personal whim, political orientation, views of 'social justice'".

Judicial interpretation is a theory or mode of thought that explains("progressives") how the judiciary should interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents and legislation (see statutory interpretation). An interpretation which results in or supports some form of law-making role for the judiciary in interpreting the law is sometimes pejoratively characterized as judicial activism, the opposite of which is judicial lethargy, with judicial restraint somewhere in between.

I added "progressives" JD...you are simply repeating progressive doctorine with regard to the "interpretation' of the Constitution...which allows "Change" you can believe in?

[I added "progressives" JD...you are simply repeating progressive doctorine with regard to the "interpretation' of the Constitution...which allows "Change" you can believe in?

I'm proud that you were able to to make a post without mentioning Obama. Unfortunately, you're still unable to refrain from conflating topics.

Since you already present nonsense "facts" in the same way, here's something you may be interested in... Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Announcing Beck University (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/42502/) I don't think the chalk board with pictures of Stalin, Hitler and Swastikas is included though.

conflating topics.



you shouldn't use words that you don't understand

The right to bear arms is clear and articulate.

Is it? Please define "arms" then. Slingshot? RPG?

I'd think we could all agree that an individual doesn't need a nuclear weapon to protect themselves from assault or government abuse.

The Second Amendment in particular was drafted at a time where states rights were shifting to the federal government. The language of these statutes weren't born from a golden goose, they were hashed out by people trying to draft rules to guide a country given the challenges of the moment.

If the job of a judge is to determine if a law passed constitutional muster, one can only assume that they must first try to understand constitutional intent, which isn't always so clear. The arguments over "cruel and unusual punishment" during the Bush years are evidence enough...

I'm all for a balanced court as it will more times than not come to the correct conclusion.

-spence

you shouldn't use words that you don't understand

Conflate: verb - To bring things together and fuse them into a single entity

"Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, become confused until there seems to be only a single identity — the differences appear to become lost"

Considering how you take any topic you may disagree with and somehow blend it in with progressives, socialism or Obama regardless of the topic's origin... seems pretty accurate.

Considering how you take any topic you may disagree with and somehow blend it in with progressives, socialism or Obama regardless of the topic's origin... seems pretty accurate.

is that what Spence does?
I thought it was spin, but sounds like that to me

Is it? Please define "arms" then. Slingshot? RPG?

I'd think we could all agree that an individual doesn't need a nuclear weapon to protect themselves from assault or government abuse.

Yes, it is. While the scope of this Right is widely disputed (such as the assault rifle debates), it is my belief that the Second Amendment grants citizens the right to own a firearm for personal protection and any overly intrusive regulations on that right, such as a handgun ban, is Unconstitutional.

As you said, Constitutional intent. In this case, the intent is clear.

The right to bear arms is clear and articulate. The Constitutionality of abortion is not. I should have stated that it's application requires interpretation... never said anything about interpretations should be"based on personal whim, political orientation, views of 'social justice'".

You said "I think the public hanging of child rapists and murderers would be Constitutionally acceptable and not conflict with the restriction of "cruel and unusual punishment". Others may disagree and perceive it as unconstitutional." This implies a Constitutional lack of clarity because it promotes "interpretation" based on personal opinion. Actually, the right to bear arms, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the "right" to an abortion should not require wrenching, conflicting, "interpretation."

There is no restriction in the Constitution on the types of "arms" that a citizen has a right to bear.

Since there is no definition of what is cruel or unusual in the Constitution, such punishments are left to be determined by the people and their legislators in accordence with normative standards and practices.

There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. Again, this "right" should be reserved to State legislatures bringing the matter up to a vote of their citizens. There is, of course, a matter of a human right to life. Apparently, it is difficult to determine whether a human is alive, or even human, until it is separated from the umbilical cord. Even then, living, viable newborns that result from failed late term abortions are discarded into trash heaps, apparently not considered human or alive.

Conflate: verb - To bring things together and fuse them into a single entity

"Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, become confused until there seems to be only a single identity — the differences appear to become lost"

Considering how you take any topic you may disagree with and somehow blend it in with progressives, socialism or Obama regardless of the topic's origin... seems pretty accurate.

confusion would be the key word....
what you "interpret" as conflation on my part is a result of your inability to recognize and/or understand simple concepts and facts that disagree with your shifting world view..much easier for you to "merge" or conflate them into a perceived single mode of dissenting argument and then dismiss all with some Glen Beck or Fox news reference as you have done here and elsewhere...while completely ignoring the actual point or points...works for you I guess.... I've been and try to be pretty clear on progressives, socialism(ists) and Obama and the war that they are engaged in against America, the Constitution and our private sector....no conflation is necessary and to ignore the ideaology being forced on Americans currently, it's sources and the detremental effects is to have your head in the sand.. it becomes clearer each day .....at least for most Americans...I just can't figure out which side you are on sometimes.....you are idealogically erratic and that may be the cause of your "confusion by your own conflation"....... :uhuh: don't blame me....

I will give you a little credit however, once in a while you provide a real gem...like...the right to bear arms is constitutionally correct...or however you stated it...now that is brilliant stuff......:rotf2:

of course, we do need to worry about Spence's citizens bearing nuclear missiles

Is it? Please define "arms" then. Slingshot? RPG?

The two appendages that hang from the shoulders and onto which the hands are attached.

Actually, it was clear that the framers meant weapons, including weapons of war. Though there were much larger weapons than various rifles and sidearms (cannons, gunboats, battleships, etc.,) there was no need to define what was protected as a right to own. If you could afford a battleship and had a place to keep it, it was your right. Now, local ordinances might interfere, not with your right to own an Abrams tank, but on what roads it would be allowed. If you can afford a hydrogen bomb and want to waste your money thusly, go for it. Again, there may be problems with hazardous material handling and storage. This nonsense that if you allow law abiding citizens to own nefarious and powerful weapons, chaos, anarchy, uncontrollabe mass murders and havoc will burst the seams of society is an insult to the people.

I'd think we could all agree that an individual doesn't need a nuclear weapon to protect themselves from assault or government abuse.

Not knowing what might be needed, it was probably better not to specify.

The Second Amendment in particular was drafted at a time where states rights were shifting to the federal government. The language of these statutes weren't born from a golden goose, they were hashed out by people trying to draft rules to guide a country given the challenges of the moment.

Wow! Halfway into George Washington's first term as POTUS and rights were already "shifting to the federal government"? I guess that's why the Fed. Gov. has been able to grab so much power from the People--it had a huge head start.

Actually, wasn't the Constitution and its first ammendments a prohibition AGAINST the Federal Government--Those pesky negative rights that Obama complains about?

If the job of a judge is to determine if a law passed constitutional muster, one can only assume that they must first try to understand constitutional intent, which isn't always so clear. The arguments over "cruel and unusual punishment" during the Bush years are evidence enough...

For the most part, when "intent" is not clear, it is so due to a contending party trying to find a supposed lack of clarity and hidden intent so as to win an argument (approve Federal legislation, deny certain inalieanable rights, etc.) Arguing over whether a punishment is cruel or unusual (as if punishments are somehow other than cruel) in a Constitutional context is obviously and intentionally shadowy. There is obviously NO INTENT to specify. It is obviously left to the people to decide what is cruel and unusual. It should also be obvious that if it is so arguable as to cause such difficulty to decide, that the punishments are probably not cruel or unusual, but just distasteful to some, and a political tool for others.

I'm all for a balanced court as it will more times than not come to the correct conclusion.

-spence

Since there are 9 members, it cannot be mathematically balanced. What matters is not a balance between two opposing views (there can certainly be more than two, there could possibly be nine,) but that Constitutional decisions are made within the bounds of the Constitution, not by various penumbras and emanations that one might personally wish existed for what one feels is the betterment of society.