This morning, in a sweeping ruling going far past what the Bush Administration wanted the Second ammendment is FINALLY codified as an INDIVIDUAL right.

this ruling may not be all of what we wanted buit it's >90%.

I'll bey NYC Mayor Bloomburg is slitting hiswrists as I type this....

AD

Just read the account a little while ago. While it was a success it wasn't a resounding one. A 5-4 split, which is sure to keep the gun grabbers looking for a loophole or at least a place to hang their hat.
Some of the disenting opinions showed a real lack of understanding of the issue I think. None the less, like any contest the final score is what counts and we won!

Firearms Industry Hails Victory in
Supreme Court Second Amendment Case

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- the trade association for the firearms industry – hailed today’s United States Supreme Court 5-4 decision written by Justice Scalia that determined authoritatively that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a major victory for all Americans,†said NSSF President Steve Sanetti. “The Heller decision reaffirms the wisdom of our founding fathers in creating the Bill of Rights to protect and preserve individual rights, the cornerstone of our democracy. Furthermore, this decision solidifies an historical fact, the commonsense understanding that governments have powers, not rights -- rights are reserved exclusively for individuals.â€

Demonstrating the strong grassroots support for the individual rights thesis, the nation’s leading gun control group, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, conceded victory prior to the High Court’s ruling. In an interview with ABC News last week, Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke noted, “We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means. Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right.†The U.S. Supreme Court agrees that the public is correct.

The importance of having a uniform and legally accepted definition of the Second Amendment is particularly important to the firearms industry, as noted by Sanetti. “The products that our industry manufactures are the means through which our Second Amendment rights are realized. Clearly sportsmen, hunters, responsible firearms owners and the industry are all heavily vested in this groundbreaking ruling.â€

Though the Heller decision is the first time that the High Court has declared in absolute terms that the Second Amendment is an individual right, the nation's leading historians, legal scholars and constitutional experts have long been on record supporting such a conclusion. Renowned scholars, including Lawrence Tribe of Harvard, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, William Van Alstyne of Duke and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, have been vocal in their assertion that the Second Amendment, like all the other rights of the people recognized in the Bill of Rights, secures an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

"Today’s decision lays to rest the specious argument that the Second Amendment is not an individual right and marks the beginning of the end of repressive gun laws that have infringed upon individual liberty and done nothing to make America safer,†said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.â€
NSSF filed a friend of the court brief in support of the respondent, Mr. Heller.

BACKGROUND:
In March, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in striking down the District's gun ban, held in Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia that "The phrase 'the right of the people' . . . leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." This was the second time in recent history that a federal circuit court upheld the longstanding belief that the Second Amendment was an individual right. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the case of U.S. v. Emerson that "All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
The mayor of Washington, D.C., Adrian M. Fenty, filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for the high court to rule. The case became known as District of Columbia v. Heller. According to FBI statistics, Washington D.C., with its gun ban, ranks as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States and maintains one of the highest per-capita murder rates in the country.

###

Whew, that was a close one.

Is anyone else as angry as I am that the 4 liberal judges voted against this?

The idea that these judges could "interpret" the Constitution this way scares the hell out of me.

Hey, Obama! I'm not a bitter SOB! I just want my Constitutional rights. Now, I've got 'em. Too bad ya don't understand that they're your rights too but then again, you're a lawyer & skew facts according to what you want.

Hurrah, WE WIN, WE WIN..

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:
Whew, that was a close one.

Is anyone else as angry as I am that the 4 liberal judges voted against this?

The idea that these judges could "interpret" the Constitution this way scares the hell out of me.

I agree, how could those 4 judges see things that way. It is scary that someone would not see that the rights of the people are far more important than anything else.

SECOND AMENDMENT TRIUMPH: JUSTICES UPHOLD INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!

BELLEVUE, WA – With this morning’s ruling on the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, America has begun “its long march back toward liberty under a Second Amendment that means what it says,†the Second Amendment Foundation said.

“Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court should forever put to rest any contention that the right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental, individual civil right,†said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “For six decades, anti-gun rights extremists have engaged in a monumental fraud that has been unfortunately perpetuated by activist judges who erroneously insisted that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to service in a militia.

“Wisdom and truth have triumphed over hysteria and falsehood,†he continued. “This decision makes it clear that a right ‘of the people’ is a right enjoyed by, and affirmed for, all citizens. It destroys a cornerstone of anti-gun rights elitism, which has fostered – through years of deceit and political demagoguery – the erosion of this important civil right.

“This ruling also makes it abundantly clear that laws which ban the possession of firearms, or make it simply impossible through regulation for citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, are unconstitutional and cannot stand,†Gottlieb stated. “Today, America has taken a small but significant step toward restoring the Second Amendment to its proper place in our Bill of Rights.

“For too many years,†he observed, “Americans have seen this fundamental civil right under constant and unrelenting attack. We are hopeful that today’s decision will halt an insidious campaign for citizen disarmament through legislation and regulations that have made our neighborhoods less safe, our cities less secure and our people less self-reliant, which is the trait that has made America unique among nations.

“But this fight is hardly over,†Gottlieb concluded. “Today’s ruling is a stepping stone, the foundation upon which we can rebuild this important individual right. Our work has only just begun.â€

The dissenting Justices DO NOT care what the US Constitution says. They have a purely politicaal agenda and they are there for no reason other than to enforce that agenda.

There were two dissenting opinions. One group said that the 2nd was not an individual right and the second dissent was that Government should be able to limit the individual right stronger than the majority decision allowed them to.

Congratulations, DC!

I hope we'll soon be able to congratulate law-abiding gun owners in Chicago, San Francisco, etc.

Here are some of findings in the majority opinion

Held: The 2nd amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self defense within the home.

The Anti Federalistists feared that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable its citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing armn or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens militia would be preserved.

The handgun ban and the trigger lock requirement (as applied to self defense) violate the second amendment.

.....and we can kiss the 2nd Amendment good bye if Obama is elected and gets to put radical left wing judges on the SC.

Bob

I was so happy to read this I literally jumped out of my chair at the office. All the antis are wondering what's wrong with me, and when I tell them, they just roll their eyes.

It is SO REFRESHING to see a decent, forthright decision come down from our nation's highest court. So much these days we are pushed further and further into liberal BS, finally a win, a BIG win, for the right side (pun intended)!

Nothing makes me happier that seeing the "turd under their nose" look Brady, Bloomburg, Schumer, et. al are giving right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:
Whew, that was a close one.

Is anyone else as angry as I am that the 4 liberal judges voted against this?

The idea that these judges could "interpret" the Constitution this way scares the hell out of me.

Count me in with you. Those four are frightening. It should have been 9-0.

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Bob in TX:
.....and we can kiss the 2nd Amendment good bye if Obama is elected and gets to put radical left wing judges on the SC.

Bob

Yep, all the more reason we need to work like hell getting McCain elected.
If Obama wins, he'll have a Democrat Senate to appoint Liberal Judges.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out in the various local courts. I understand that Chicago is next. I'd like to see how this affects personal carry laws in each state.

I was sort of surprise it came down this way. With some of the other decisions the Court handed down. I fiquired that they would rule in favor of DC. While I am happy to be wrong on this one, 5 to 4 is appalling. The Court was correct, and if anything it illistrats that this election is about keeping our Rights and Liberties. I have huge problems with John Mc Cain. But as many problems that I have with the Senator, they are few compared with "The Magic Negro" I just love the left they refer to the court's all the time when it goes there way and when they loose one, the chew a hole in the rug. I would like to see the 1968 Gun Control Act struck down, since its based on a 1935 German Law, Dodd had the original and wrote the 68 Act almost word for word. It has no place in American Law. The Dodd I am refering to is the Father to the Current legend in his own mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan Campbell:
It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out in the various local courts. I understand that Chicago is next. I'd like to see how this affects personal carry laws in each state.

The Illinois State Rifle Assoc. (Those studs!) filed a federal suit against the Chicago pistol ban within an hour of the ruling.

WTG Illinois!

I pledged $1,000 this morning to Calguns.net's legal fund for our start here in California!

quote:

Hey, Obama! I'm not a bitter SOB! I just want my Constitutional rights. Now, I've got 'em. Too bad ya don't understand that they're your rights too but then again, you're a lawyer & skew facts according to what you want.

Obama said in the debate last spring in Wisconsin that as a Constitutional lawyer he believed the Second Amendment confers an individual right. He reiterated that identical postition again today. Vote against him because he's skinny, vote against him because he was born in Hawaii, vote against him because he was against invading Iraq if you wish, but voting against him because of his position on the Second Amendment is simply wallowing in ignorance.

quote:

voting against him because of his position on the Second Amendment is simply wallowing in ignorance.

You're right. If you are voting for Obama you are ignorant.

quote:

Obama has voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to lawsuits. He also took largely liberal positions on gun laws while in the Illinois Legislature, including backing a ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.

Campaigning in Cincinnati, McCain claimed Obama has reversed course on the issue. Obama told FOX Business Network he's been consistent.

The Democrat's campaign said a spokesman made an "inartful" statement when he said in November that Obama believed the D.C. law was constitutional. But Obama himself did not correct a debate moderator who repeated the position in February.

"You said in Idaho recently, I'm quoting here, 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.' But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," said the moderator, Leon Harris of Washington television station WJLA. Obama nodded as Harris spoke and said: "Right, right."

"How can you reconcile those two different positions?" Harris asked.

Obama answered that the United States has conflicting traditions of gun ownership and street violence that results from illegal handgun use. "So, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets," Obama said.

The Obama campaign argued that Obama was simply acknowledging the question by saying "right."

In other instances, Obama refused to articulate a position when asked whether he thought the D.C. ban was constitutional.

The campaign would not answer directly Thursday when asked whether the candidate agreed with the court that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional, simply pointing back to his statement.

Full story here. Obama's voting record, unlike his campaign rhetoric, does not indicate that he is a Second Amendment supporter.

quote:

.....and we can kiss the 2nd Amendment good bye if Obama is elected and gets to put radical left wing judges on the SC.

Bob

Truer words were never spoken.

When, NOT if, but WHEN this comes up again, I don't believe the out come will be being celebrated by gun owners.

I hope like hell I am wrong, but I figure that by 2012 this will be fought all over again, with a different outcome. JMO.

quote:

but voting against him because of his position on the Second Amendment is simply wallowing in ignorance.

Stone,
You are kidding right? You do realize that if he's president he is going to have to toe the party line. That if a Sup. Court position opened up that there is no way he'd be allowed to put in any candidate remotely in favor of the Second Amendment. You do understand this...don't you???

I find it highly doubtful that the Supremes will ever again revisit the issue of the second ammendment being an individual right.

I could see them failing to strike down some other DC-like law in the future, but...

It took 200 years before case like this could be stuck before them.
I expect to be dead for atleast 50years before they adress the issue again.

In any event we finally have a victory, we should celebrate for a few days, it may be a while before we have another cause to celebrate.



AD

A vote for Obama is a vote to install liberal judges to the court.....one is too many as the vote of 5-4 concludes

SC,

I see you have your blinders on again.

quote:

“We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions. I think there’s a lot of room before bumping against a constitutional barrier... I am not in favor of concealed weapons. There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer... I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms. The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun laws isn’t born out by our Constitution.†—Barack Hussein Obama on “thoughtful†adulteration of our Constitution.

Yada,yada,yada..and yet no one has publicly thanked George Bush for this victory? He was the one who promoted both Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. Without their votes, we would have been sunk!

I wish some one would blame Bush for securing these individual gun rights. They blame him for everything else!

As a aside...John McCain spent 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton. That alone should give him 4 years in the White House.

SAF FILES LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CHICAGO’S HANDGUN BAN

BELLEVUE, WA – Following Thursday’s 5-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms, and that a municipal gun ban violates that right, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) filed a federal lawsuit challenging the City of Chicago’s long-standing handgun ban. The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“Chicago’s handgun ban has failed to stop violent crime,†SAF founder Alan Gottlieb stated. “It’s time to give the Constitution a chance.â€

In addition to SAF and ISRA, plaintiffs include Chicago residents Otis McDonald, a retiree who has been working with police to rid his neighborhood of drug dealers, and who wants to have a handgun at his home; Adam Orlov, a former Evanston police officer; software engineer David Lawson and his wife, Colleen, a hypnotherapist, whose home has been targeted by burglars. Attorney Alan Gura, who argued the District of Columbia challenge before the high court, and Chicago area attorney David G. Sigale, represent the plaintiffs.

“Our goal,†Gura said “is to require state and local officials to respect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Chicago’s handgun ban, and some of its gun registration requirements, are clearly unconstitutional.â€

“The right to defend our homes and families against those who would do them harm, whether a random criminal, violent ex-domestic partner, or other wrongdoer, is one of the principles upon which America was founded,†Sigale said. “It is time the City of Chicago trust its honest, law-abiding residents with this Constitutional right.â€

“Chicago's registration scheme cries out for common-sense reform,†ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson added.

Under the gun law currently in place, firearms must be re-registered annually.

“Each time,†Gura said, “a tax is imposed, forms must be filled out, photographs submitted. A person who owns more than one gun will find herself or himself constantly in the process of registering each gun as it comes due for expiration. If registration is to be required, once is enough.â€

He further noted that Chicago’s bizarre requirement that guns be registered before they are acquired often times makes registration impossible. The penalty for failure to comply with the registration scheme is that a gun not re-registered on time can never be registered again. Gura likened it to a requirement to dispose of a car if it is not re-registered on time with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Find out more by visiting: www.ChicagoGunCase.com

From Jim sheperd's June 27 edition of the OUTDOOR WIRE:

Special Bulletin

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the District of Columbia's 32-year ban on handguns. In the decision, the majority opinion says, unequivocally, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. In the explanation of the decision, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Justices say the much-debated meaning of the Second Amendment could be rephrased to read:

"Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, logic demands that there is a link between the stated purpose and the command. Further, the Court cited the language of the First and Ninth Amendment as using very similar terminology, but "unambiguously refer to an individual's right". That interpretation codifies, the Court says, the right beyond any ambiguous reading.

"Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a major victory for all Americans," said NSSF President Steve Sanetti. "The Heller decision reaffirms the wisdom of our founding fathers in creating the Bill of Rights to protect and preserve individual rights, the cornerstone of our democracy. Furthermore, this decision solidifies an historical fact, the commonsense understanding that governments have powers, not rights -- rights are reserved exclusively for individuals."

"Today's decision lays to rest the specious argument that the Second Amendment is not an individual right and marks the beginning of the end of repressive gun laws that have infringed upon individual liberty and done nothing to make America safer," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel."

"Wisdom and truth have triumphed over hysteria and falsehood," says Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "This decision makes it clear that a right 'of the people' is a right enjoyed by, and affirmed for, all citizens. It destroys a cornerstone of anti-gun rights elitism, which has fostered - through years of deceit and political demagoguery - the erosion of this important civil right.

"This ruling also makes it abundantly clear that laws which ban the possession of firearms, or make it simply impossible through regulation for citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, are unconstitutional and cannot stand," Gottlieb continued. "Today, America has taken a small but significant step toward restoring the Second Amendment to its proper place in our Bill of Rights."

Gottlieb is correct in that significant step characterization. The decision, although clear in the individual's right, is not universal in its decision. In the ruling, for example, the opinion is careful to make a distinction between an individual right and an unconditional permission to carry "any firearm at any time."

This is recognition, albeit not direct, of the fact that the United States has regulations in place, for example, strictly regulating ownership of machine guns and other devices including suppressors. That point was raised in an Amicus Curae argument put forward by United States Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. The argument, as a bit of background, was not supported by the administration, as was shown in Vice President Dick Cheney's signing an amicus brief along with more than 150 members of Congress.

The disagreement was obvious in the decision. In footnotes, for example, Justice John Paul Stevens position that the right to petition is "primarily collective in nature" is summarily dismissed as "dead wrong." In another, his argument regarding "to keep and bear" being clearly established and, therefore, not mutually guaranteed as described as a "bizarre argument".

The meaning as stated in yesterday's opinion is clear, the "right" to keep and bear arms merely codified a pre-existing right. As a pre-existing right, it "shall not be infringed" as it is not a right granted by the Constitution, but one recognized by it.

Shortly after the decision was announced from the bench, another bit of news that had been whispered earlier in the week was announced at the National Rifle Association. A lawsuit challenging Chicago's gun ban was not only ready, but being filed. According to the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre, that lawsuit would seek to quickly move in those areas where common sense and other less confrontational approaches had failed.

Across the industry, however, it was more a celebration than a rallying cry for additional combat. From Smith & Wesson headquarters in Massachusetts, CEO Michael Golden was pleased with the decision. "It was obvious the Justices decided the case in the right way," Golden said, "it is good news to the industry and for individual rights. The citizens of the District of Columbia, San Francisco, Chicago and other areas have been told they have the same rights as the rest of the country."

For Taurus's Bob Morrison, the decision was one that meant more to him than the ability to keep making his products. "As a West Point graduate," Morrison told me, "this decision reaffirms the oath I took to protect and defend this country."

"For me," he said, "for all of us who swore that oath, it's knowledge that we did the right thing."

In short, the right of the people - all the people- to have firearms if they so choose, had been affirmed.

In the celebratory moment, however, it should be noted that no one has ever implied that the "reasonable restrictions" referred to by yesterday's decision should be tossed in all instances. Convicted felons, the mentally unstable and others disqualified from other rights should be denied firearms. The universal agreement, however, is that the local area in which a law-abiding citizen resides should not disqualify them from exercising their right to own a firearm.

In reading his dissenting opinion from the bench yesterday, Justice Stevens made a comment that has been largely ignored by many media outlets, but has raised the concerns of observers. "There is," Stevens said in his emotional statement, "no untouchable constitutional right." He also said that "judicial restraint" would, in his opinion, have been a better decision.

We're interpreting those comments to state that Stevens believes the Supreme Court should have passed on a decision, remanding the question back to the Circuit Court- with an implied hope that a lesser level of scrutiny to be applied.

It was that Strict Level of Scrutiny applied to this case that led to Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion. In it, Breyer calls for a new classification of judicial scrutiny, setting aside Strict, Intermediate and rational basis scrutiny for what he calls a judge-empowering "interest balancing inquiry" that asks "whether the statute burdens a protected interest in any way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." In other words, Breyer held that because handgun violence was a problem, because the law was limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a fact the majority describe as "false") the interest balancing inquiry would be an appropriate level of scrutiny to apply. Fortunately, that was not a view held by the majority of the Court. The majority, correctly, noted that not only is there no basis for such an approach, it would allow the "Third Branch of Government" (the courts) to decide on a case-by-case basis if a right was really worth insisting upon.

In the long term, we believe the Court's summary says it all:

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

"But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. "

"This is a great moment in American history. It vindicates individual Americans all over this country who have always known that this is their freedom worth protecting," declared NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. "Our founding fathers wrote and intended the Second Amendment to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has now acknowledged it. The Second Amendment as an individual right now becomes a real permanent part of American Constitutional law."

"Anti-gun politicians can no longer deny that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right," said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. "All law-abiding Americans have a fundamental, God-given right to defend themselves in their homes. Washington, D.C. must now respect that right."

LaPierre, however, made it clear that the efforts to strike down all gun bans is now underway, saying "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom."

It appears the NRA is moving - quickly - to see that the same level of respect is given in Chicago. And in Chicago's surrounding suburbs. And San Francisco. And, well, you get the point.

******

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Obama said in the debate last spring in Wisconsin that as a Constitutional lawyer he believed the Second Amendment confers an individual right. He reiterated that identical postition again today. Vote against him because he's skinny, vote against him because he was born in Hawaii, vote against him because he was against invading Iraq if you wish, but voting against him because of his position on the Second Amendment is simply wallowing in ignorance.

stonecreek - you may not be aware of this, but obama is on record as saying directly and point-blank to john lott:

quote:

i do not believe that people should be allowed to own guns.

now, perhaps you might choose to trust that he won't let his personal belief (which was so clearly stated above) interfere with upholding the constitution; you may also choose to trust that he will appoint supreme court justices who will do the same.

as for myself, i don't trust him as far as i can throw him as he has yet to produce a single friend or associate who loves this country, and THAT is why i won't vote for him.

Looks like Stone Creek is busy working in the rose garden at the Whitehouse. I hear the democrats are taking out the rose bushes and planting watermelons.

I think a lot of these pro gun zealots are WAY jumping the gun (pun intended). Don't get me wrong, I am a gun zealot as well, but when you boil down the decision, which I read ALL of, the only points that it clarified is that the second amendment is an individual right (desparately needed) and it could not be infringed IN THE HOME for protection and that the jurisdictions could provide for licensing in a manner they saw fit.

Now the fight will simply move. It will become what is reasonable for acquiring a license and who makes that decistion and who will comply. Yes, I can keep and bear arms in my home, PROVIDED I have a license. The idiot (Heller) said he had no problem with licensing and that left it WIDE open.

Just an opinion. The local CCW attorney agrees with me as well.

are all texans racists, or just the ones who shoot ear-tagged pet deer at timed corn feeders inside a high fence from an air-conditioned stand equipped with a beer can holder?

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Hey, Obama! I'm not a bitter SOB! I just want my Constitutional rights. Now, I've got 'em. Too bad ya don't understand that they're your rights too but then again, you're a lawyer & skew facts according to what you want.

Obama said in the debate last spring in Wisconsin that as a Constitutional lawyer he believed the Second Amendment confers an individual right. He reiterated that identical postition again today. Vote against him because he's skinny, vote against him because he was born in Hawaii, vote against him because he was against invading Iraq if you wish, but voting against him because of his position on the Second Amendment is simply wallowing in ignorance.

Stonecreek:
Me thinketh that the Dimocratic candidate speaketh with forked tongue. Suggest him be renamed "Two-tounged Obama" Ughh!

Best, Bear in Fairbanks

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Hey, Obama! I'm not a bitter SOB! I just want my Constitutional rights. Now, I've got 'em. Too bad ya don't understand that they're your rights too but then again, you're a lawyer & skew facts according to what you want.

Obama said in the debate last spring in Wisconsin that as a Constitutional lawyer he believed the Second Amendment confers an individual right. He reiterated that identical postition again today. Vote against him because he's skinny, vote against him because he was born in Hawaii, vote against him because he was against invading Iraq if you wish, but voting against him because of his position on the Second Amendment is simply wallowing in ignorance.

Obama has consistently voted for more restrictions and laws against gun owners, his entire political career.

Judge him for how he has voted not what he says. To do otherwise is simply wallowing in ignorance.

Well, in any event one thing we need not listen to ever again is some self-appointed "constitutional expert" telling
the uninformed that the 2nd ammendment is not an individual right.

That much is settled law and I won't be worrying much about that changing no matter how many judges obama gets to appoint, should he actually be elected.

that is the wisdom carved in stone that we were lacking to win all the other fights.

Lawful persuits.

I'll say "thank you very much" for that
It's a much bigger club than you seem to think it is.


AD

The Wall Street Journal had an article in it today which said that there are no gun shops in DC, and that DC residents can't purchase handguns in the neighboring areas.

I guess the gun ban repeal doesn't really make a difference, yet.

quote:

Originally posted by jtinidaho:
The Wall Street Journal had an article in it today which said that there are no gun shops in DC, and that DC residents can't purchase handguns in the neighboring areas.

I guess the gun ban repeal doesn't really make a difference, yet.

Besides Josh Sugarman of the anti-gun Violence Policy Center,

Some of the other DC FFL's include, besides the BATFE itself:

Crackerjack, Inc. is a tax exempt/non-profit social club. See http://www.taxexemptworld.com/organization.asp?tn=302522.

Performance Hobbies is a model rocketry hobby store. See http://www.performancehobbies.com/.

Capitol Works is a fireworks company. See http://www.capitolworksinc.com/thecompany.htm.

Ronco Consulting is a mine clearnce comapny. See http://www.roncoconsulting.com/.

AKE, LLC is a security consulting company. See http://www.akegroup.com/ and http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2003/safety/contacts.html

quote:

Originally posted by jtinidaho:
The Wall Street Journal had an article in it today which said that there are no gun shops in DC, and that DC residents can't purchase handguns in the neighboring areas.

B]I guess the gun ban repeal doesn't really make a difference, yet.[/B].

I guess you are so wrong, it makes a hell of a difference. As far as the citizens of DC purchasing a firearm, they only need an FFL holder to do, not a GUN SHOP.