Washington DC vs Heller..
The court is done and a verdict will be in June.
If we lose this decision, it is an unprecedented disaster...40 states have RKBA ( Right to keep and bear Arms) provisions, but the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment is the primary buttress that holds all the state constitutional guarantees upright...
I hope we win this on all levels but especially on an individual rights basis...the question is, of course, the definition of "reasonable restriction..."
Please ... it is crucial to us as Americans to have ALL of our amendments intact as they were intended by our founding fathers.
If you care about our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.... please take a minute to call this number.
Should the Supreme Court Uphold the DC Handgun Ban?
The # to call for NO is : 202-585-3886
I urge you to text all your phone and e-mail contacts with this number.
United We stand.. Divided We Fall (http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/usflag.gif)
I know that some of you are not too interested in this.. but if you are................
Marshal / Kjell has everything done and ready to listen to.
We were so lucky to have the permission to use this on Down Range.
http://www.downrange.tv/rkba/dc-v-heller.htm
And the number is either busy or it just rings and rings and rings..
( I haven't been able to get through yet, so I don't know what the deal is. )
>:( OKay, say some hoodlum wants to rob a bank or commit murder - he needs a gun so he goes to the local gun dealer, fills out all the proper paperwork, waits for the background check, makes sure the serial number is registered, ::) ::) I THINK NOT ! - remember the bumper sticker that was so popular when this all started? OUTLAW GUNS AND ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS - you can bet your bottom dollar I am very interested in this. I sold all of Lewis' guns after he died, but that doesn't mean my views on this subject have changed. Another way to keep us under the government's thumb and helpless to defend ourselves and our property. I also prefer the sign that says "This property protected by Smith & Wesson"
Flo, you comment hit it on the head. If they take this away from us, we will be in big trouble. Thanks Teresas for posting this.
First .. Jim Shepard is a very close friend of ours.. He writes for "The Shooting Wire" and he was one of the lucky ones of 92 people out of 1500 to get credentials to be inside the courtroom yesterday. He is smart but yet so country .. and when he talks he has a way of telling you what goes on in a language we all understand. I love to be around the guy. He makes me laugh all the time.
Here is part of his article he wrote..and at the bottom is a link to his 40 minute interview that we ( Michael) did with him. I will post the link at the bottom if you want to "listen to Jim". It is worth listening to.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Supreme Court Hears "The Threshold Question"
By Jim Shepherd
Mar 19, 2008 - 12:33:06 AM
I didn't want to copy the whole article. Just thought this part was perfectly timed..
That fact wasn't lost on Dick Heller, the named defendant in the case.
Speaking with him on the Supreme Court steps after the arguments -and his long question-and-answer period with the media, I asked him how he felt about "his" lawsuit.
"It's a simple case to me," Heller said, "It is wrong for the government to tell me that it is OK for me to have a gun during my work hours, but illegal for me to have a gun when the only thing I want to protect is me."
At that point, a reporter interjected:...... "The Mayor (DC Mayor Adrian M. Fenty) says the handgun ban and his initiatives have significantly lowered violent crime in the District. How do you answer that, Mr. Heller?"
The initial answer certainly wasn't expected – Dick Heller laughed. Ruefully.
Pointing at the Mayor who was making his way across the plaza, surrounded by at least six DC police officers, Heller said, "The Mayor doesn't know what he's talking about."
"He doesn't walk on the street like an average citizen. Look at him! He travels with an army of police officers as bodyguards – to keep him safe. But he says that I don't have the right to be a force of one to protect myself. Does he look like he thinks the streets are safe?"
There was no follow-up question.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you are interested in listening to Jim Shepard on what went on in the courtroom..
click this link and Jim is the first one at the top.
http://www.downrange.tv/rkba/dc-v-heller2.htm
I called the number, it never answered with anything, but I hope it somehow noted my call.
Thanks Roma.. I called and it made some clicks .. hope it took it.
We can be thankful for the vote of the Supreme Court today.
Amen Bonnie, for the life of me I do not understand the mentality that thinks the thieves, murders and criminals will turn in their handguns. Banning guns from LAW-ABIDING citizens is the absolute most idiotic proposal I know of.
Frank
(http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll33/thinkpeace9/Thumbs-Up.gif)
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZOi0QxIZk7wY8br0MHhsEz-wL-wD91HR3800
(http://www.cascity.com/howard/animations/83.gif)
This is great news indeed, but the fight is not over. This ruling, as it was designed, is just the first step. Now that we have this ruling that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, we can now go forward with the fight to define "reasonable" restrictions.
We will celebrate, by all means, but we can't get complacent. The anti gunners are still with us, and they are very well funded and motivated.
Remember, during the Revolution, after initial victories in Concord and forcing the British out of Boston we got our butts kicked a lot, until we finally won at Yorktown. This is the beginning of a long fight toward victory. But like the British withdrawal from Boston it is the victory that will make all the others possible.
The first skirmish has just been won and has set the course for the remainder of the war.
We got this in an e-mail today from
Eric Cantor, United States Congressman
The hard work of millions of Second Amendment rights advocates has paid off in a tremendous way. Earlier today, in perhaps the most significant Second Amendment court decision in over 60 years, the U.S. Supreme Court shot down Washington, D.C.'s 32-year-old ban on hand guns. It affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their family and their home. The ruling today will cast fresh light on the constitutionality of several other bans on firearms around the country.
This historic moment could not have been possible without the groundswell of attention and awareness you helped create.
As we move forward, we must remember the importance of appointing judges who respect our laws and interpret the Constitution as it was intended; our liberties and freedoms must never be compromised. This effort was a major victory for liberty.
From Chicago ( http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/mccain.handgun.ban.2.757688.html
McCain: Chicago Gun Ban Infringes On Rights
Republican Presidential Candidate Singles Out Chicago In Statement Praising Supreme Court Ruling
Gun Rights Ruling May Change Chicago Law
ARLINGTON, Va. (CBS) ― U.S. Sen. John McCain said Thursday that the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gun ownership showed that the Chicago handgun ban has "infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans."
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee called the ruling a "landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States."
"For the first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers," McCain said in a statement.
He criticized Sen. Barack Obama for not signing a bipartisan amicus brief supporting the ruling later issued by the Supreme Court, and singled out the Chicago ban in describing what the ruling should change.
Teresa, that makes my day.
Frank
Aren't you all running around shooting your guns in the air? ;D
Nope..the law abiding citizens keep them close to us... in the nightstand drawers... under the mattress.. on our person...
for protecting ourselves..our families and our property. ;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"
All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.
NRA Sues to Overturn San Francisco's Handgun Ban
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373122,00.html
Love it! Full, head on assault by the good guys!
Maybe I am just naive. But I would have expected the big three weekly news magazines (Time, Newsweek, US News) to have either run a cover story or some such large article on the Heller decision for Monday's edition. Nope. Not a one. If you look on their websites you will see mediocre summaries of the Supreme court activity for the last week or so but nothing substantial on Heller. I will wait until next week but I don't have my hopes up. The MSM just wants to bury this is my guess. The sooner it goes down the memory hole the better. But if it had of been the other way... I bet you that it would still be all over the covers of the news..
Remember Hurricane Katrina? The only ones who were safe down there were the ones who had a bigger defense mechanism than those who sought to loot them (i.e. guns). It proved to me, all over again, the necessity of personal protection.
In some of the rougher parts of Wilmington, the women keep big jars of acid or drain cleaner near the door. Any funny business and they throw it.
When my boys were like 1 and 2 we lived in a rough part of wichita and I used to carry around a huge buck knife in my pocket because in one day ...i was in the livin room and heard the boys holler in their room and ran in there just in time to see somebody pullin the screen off their window which was bad enough because I had no phone, they ran off when they saw me and I got the boys and myself calmed down and went to get in the car and leave and while I had been in with the boys somebody had stole the stereo out of the car on the OTHER side of the house. I was always a firm believer in havin a way to protect yourself and your family and that is what cemented the idea in my mind as bein somthin I would never give up no matter what the law was. I lived in a few rough places durin my first marriage and decided if I was goin down I was gonna go down fightin at least.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 02, 2008, 10:06:51 AM
In some of the rougher parts of Wilmington, the women keep big jars of acid or drain cleaner near the door. Any funny business and they throw it.
The problem I see with that is that in a time of panic and chaos.. you have a good chance of dropping it, spilling it on yourself ..and the perp is STILL coming at you. (But it may be all that they have.. so guess it is better than nothing. )
We all knew that this was coming.. When the supreme court approved the 2nd amendment ( how ironic does THAT sound anyway) ???..
I said then that the anti gunners would fill up the cracks with rules and regs. And the idiots have started.
By Robert E. Pierre and Marcia Davis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 14, 2008; 4:39 PM
District residents will be able to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense but that right would be limited to the home and not outside it, city leaders said today, announcing new gun regulations in response to the Supreme Court's recent ruling striking down the city's handgun ban.
Gun owners will have to pass vision and written tests, provide a photo with their application to register a gun, and submit their weapon for ballistics testing. Guns will also still require trigger locks.
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and interim Attorney General Peter J. Nickles announced the regulations alongside D.C. Council Chairman Vincent G. Gray (D), Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) and several other council members.
The regulations are an effort to maintain some gun control while complying with the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 ruling last month.
"We think we have struck the delicate legal balance," Fenty said. "While we will have lawsuits, we think we stand on solid legal ground."
In a news release announcing the restrictions, Fenty said: "We continue to take every step we can to minimize handgun violence in the District. We must prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands or being misused."
Nickles said he expects the city to face lawsuits over the new regulations.
The council is expected to pass emergency legislation tomorrow, before recessing until September, officials said. Permanent legislation will come up for review in September.
The District's police department is prepared to begin the registration process for people as soon as the emergency legislation is passed.
Officials also said for the first 90 days, individuals will be limited to one gun a person.
Those who already own a gun will have a six-month amnesty period to register their weapon but will have to follow the same process as a new gun owner, city officials said.
The council had recently voted to unanimously support Mendelson's legislation that provided broader room for gun owners, allowing them to keep a weapon in their home without a trigger lock as long as it was for "immediate self-defense."
The bill specifically addressed the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, that said: "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
Nickles had argued that the city should do its best to maintain trigger locks and a strict interpretation of the high court's decision.
But today's news conference signaled that the city's executive and legislative branch had reached agreement about the way forward.
Comments at link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/14/AR2008071401332.html?nav=rss_email/components
One thing I noticed is they still require trigger locks which was pointed too as bad during the original SCOTUS hearing. The SOBs just won't learn. Now there must be more laws suits costing more taxpayer money.
************UPDATE******************
Here is a link to the actual 'emergency legislation'
http://www.dc.gov/mayor/news/release.asp?id=1333&mon=200807
Heard a DC council weasel interviewed on NPR radio, HOW will DC "regulate" the SCOTUS decision.
He was so anti-gun it had me yelling at the radio in my truck.
"Well we can comply with SCOTUS, but the "gray area" was left to the local administration"
Which translates to: DC residents are screwed! "Keeping a loaded firearm in the home is not safe" That's what HE said!! >:(
Lawsuits are coming........ generations of good 'ol lawyers will be fighting this for some time. So what if I live in DC and am driving to Va. to shoot at a range? Get pulled over, disclose the ammo box in the seat and firearm in a case?
Burned out taillight turns into really bad, really quickly.
They will fight it tooth and nail, and I hope the NRA and others fight them back.
In a news release announcing the restrictions, Fenty said: "We continue to take every step we can to minimize handgun violence in the District. We must prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands or being misused."
Why is it so difficult for these D.C. puds to understand that the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes are not obtained legally? They are already in the wrong hands! Violence would go down if they are in the right hands,...
What an idiot.!!
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm24/homesick_at_home/applause.gif)