2nd Amendment upheld

[cableman]

By now every one should have heard the decision handed down from the US Supreme Court on DC vs. Heller... where the court finally issued it's decision on gun rights by saying that Heller has a legal right under the Constitution to keep and bear arms. This is a great win for those of us who support the right to carry. Now if we can get the law changed where we can claim that our sleeper area is derived as our home and that we need the right to protect it just like we do our physical address. That would be a huge win for 2nd Amendment Rights

[Uturn2001]

There are no FMCSA regs saying you can not carry in a CMV. The "problems" are that most carriers do not allow it, many warehouses and factories prohibit firearms on their property and you have a lot of varying state and local laws that make keeping a firearm in the truck virtually impossible and be legal doing so.

In order to get past some of these issues, namely the laws, there would have to be some kind of mandatory reciprocal agreement for gun permits in all states and local jurisdictions or some kind of federal permit program. This is assuming the sleeper of a truck would be considered a "home". Otherwise the permits would have to be of the carry variety and not just ownership.

[kc0iv]

By now every one should have heard the decision handed down from the US Supreme Court on DC vs. Heller... where the court finally issued it's decision on gun rights by saying that Heller has a legal right under the Constitution to keep and bear arms. This is a great win for those of us who support the right to carry. Now if we can get the law changed where we can claim that our sleeper area is derived as our home and that we need the right to protect it just like we do our physical address. That would be a huge win for 2nd Amendment Rights

The right to carry had no bearing in this case. Nor do I see it having any effect on the right to carry.

kc0iv

[Rat]

Well if you want to carry a fire arm then you need a concealed weapons permit or you have to leave it right on the dash in full view so it can easily be seen.

Also note that carrying a firearm across a boarder might get you in trouble.

[golfhobo]

Well if you want to carry a fire arm then you need a concealed weapons permit or you have to leave it right on the dash in full view so it can easily be seen.

Also note that carrying a firearm across a boarder might get you in trouble.

So.... what is your objection to having it on the dash in full view? The BEST "protection" against a gun nut, is full disclosure!

Personally..... I'd like to know ahead of time that the BBR who wants to kick my azz, for pizzing on his tires, hasn't got the b@lls to do it with his fists, and plans on bringing his Constitutionaly protected right to OFFEND with arms along WITH his big mouth!

I also hope that it will be mandatory for him to display a sticker in his window saying that he is armed.... so I can park somewhere ELSE so as not to be accidentally SHOT while he's practicing his gun twirling skills!

This is indeed a GREAT day for Texans.... and for all others who ASPIRE to BE a TEXAN! It is just one more example of what a free hunting trip with the V.P. can do to influence the opinon of an otherwise partial Supreme Court Appointee!

Scalia is Cheney's "beyotch" and there is no doubt about it!

At least it is evident to anyone with an INDEPENDENT point of view!

[golfhobo]

Double post

[golfhobo]

Triple post! Sorry..... this hasn't happened to me in MONTHS! Don't know what happened! Must've shot myself in the head while cleaning my gun, and fell over onto the submit key!

[Rat]

So what you are saying is it is wrong to own a firearm? If you feel that way then move to Canada or another country were the people have no rights.


This is america and the 2nd amendment gives us the right to hold and bare arms.

I don't carry anymore but when I was hauling cars as an O/O I had a Ruger Blackhawk .45 LC with a 7 inch barrel in my truck.

Hey when you have high end cars on the trailer then it is better to protect yourself especially when traveling through places like New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, St Louis and other big hostile cities.

I don't haul cars anymore but if someone wants a load of Potatoes then they are welcome to them. Wendies might get a little upset when they run low on French Fries though.

[Uturn2001]

Between the various comments I have read around the WWW there are a lot of people who truly have no clue what the supreme court ruling really means.

All this ruling says is that it is unconstitutional for cities, states, and the feds to make a blanket ban on firearms. In other words they can not come in and say...No handguns, as DC, Chicago and a few other cities have done.

What will probably happen now though is that these cities will end up passing ordinances that say something like no handguns over 22 caliber and no automatics or semi automatics.

[golfhobo]

So what you are saying is it is wrong to own a firearm? If you feel that way then move to Canada or another country where the people have no rights.


This is america and the 2nd amendment gives us the right to own and bear arms.

I don't carry anymore but when I was hauling cars as an O/O I had a Ruger Blackhawk .45 LC with a 7 inch barrel in my truck.

Hey when you have high end cars on the trailer then it is better to protect yourself especially when traveling through places like New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, St Louis and other big hostile cities.

I don't haul cars anymore but if someone wants a load of Potatoes then they are welcome to them. Wendies might get a little upset when they run low on French Fries though.

Assuming you are addressing ME, Rat.... NO. I am NOT saying that! What I am saying is that this whole case was SUPPOSED to settle the issue of what IS meant by the 2nd Ammendment.... and I don't think it DID!

The decision was pretty much an EVEN split! That does NOT show ME that the highest court in the land could come to an EASY decision that would settle the argument! It shows me that they are as political as they can BE..... and that Scalia wouldn't have an "independent" thought if Cheney ALLOWED him to!

"I" have never said that the 2nd Ammendment doesn't give Americans the right to bear arms. I have said that the meaning was unclear, concerning the "militia" aspect, and that I'd LIKE to see it clarified once and for all! I don't see that it WAS, exactly. I have ALSO said, that BECAUSE it was unclear, those who tout it as their basis for argument, were basing their argument on THEIR interpretation of it. I WANTED to see the Supremes decide the issue one way or the other. I don't see a "political" split decision as having DONE so!

I have ALSO said that, EVEN under the NRA interpretation of it, it did NOT say that there could be no "restrictions" on the types of arms, and I still don't see that there CAN'T be.

I'm not sure that we got our money's worth out of this ruling! There may be MORE questions NOW than before!

I will ACCEPT this "political" decision by our Supreme Political Court as at least deciding that the Militia aspect doesn't apply, and therefore ALL citizens have the right to bear arms. I have NO PROBLEM with that. However, I still contend.... and am not convinced otherwise..... that local or state governments do not have the right to place "restrictions" on the types of arms a citizen can bear.

As KayCee said, this decision has NO bearing on the CCW laws. Therefore, doesn't really address the issue of "bearing" arms! I have NOT had a chance to fully investigate the ruling and its consequences yet, but.... it appears to me that the only thing decided was that HANDGUNS cannot be "restricted" by a local jurisdiction as they fall under the general description of FIREARMS. It says NOTHING about semi-auto rifles, maximum capacity "clips" or anything else.

Personally, I don't have a problem at all with citizens owning handguns! The D.C. ban had NO EFFECT anyways, since the guns were readily available from just outside the city limits!

I am, and WAS, mostly just interested in DEBATING the issue, and having it settled so a bunch of MORONS would stop claiming they had a right to own any and ALL forms of assault weapons and the like based on their interpretation of a badly worded ammendment to the Constitution. And if you think that THIS ruling has clarified that in "your" favor, then I suppose the next step will be a class action suit against the government for wrongful death in the case of WACO!

But, I can just about guarantee that THIS decision will NOT provide the precedent necessary to WIN such a suit!

Personally, I was sympathetic to Heller's case! And I am PROUD of my country and it's Constitution that ALLOWED him his right to "petition the government for redress of greviances!" (can't remember off the top of my head which ammendment that was,) but it shows that our system WORKS! My disappointment is with how Politically divided the court was!

My comments about Texans and BBR's was mostly in jest.... and you should lighten up a bit! I really can't STAND this attitude of "like it or leave it!" People who say that, basically mean that you can like it the way "I WANT IT TO BE" or get out. Well, I risked my life in the military to protect your rights.... AND my own.... to debate what IS the law of the land!

I suppose you are a staunch Conservative. No problem. But, you probably can't stand the "entitlement" mindset of the welfare system. But.... right now, THAT is a law of the land! You don't LIKE it?? Why don't YOU move to Canada or somewhere else??

Doesn't sound "fair" does it? And "I" would NEVER say that to you just because we might disagree on a subject of law. So, GROW UP.... and leave that playground Bully crap to the kids!

America was FOUNDED on the rights of individuals to disagree about politics! MANY have served and DIED to protect that right. For you, or anyone ELSE, to say I can "love it or leave it," is the HEIGHT of ignorance and despotism! Such an attitude pays a disservice to all the men and women who lie under little white crosses all over the world! As an American, I would be ASHAMED to ever utter such crap!

But, that is part of the problem today..... too many Americans have no idea what being one MEANS! I am NOT surprised!

Hobo

[Rat]

Well, I am a firm believer that I should beable to own any type of firearm I wish to desire or can afford. I am building an AR15 personally. I also own a Norinco SKS and would not give it up for the world.

Some of these so called bans are going to outlaw alot of semi automatic hunting rifles also and that is not right. Heck I can make a Ruger 22 into an all out assult look alike with a 30 rd banana clip.

I hunt and target shoot along with all around plinking with most everything in my cabinet.


As for the Welfare thing. It should be abolished along with other free money people get. I am sick of my dollar supporting lazy arsed people. I am sick of my dollar supporting migrants also.

It just burns me that I have to work as hard as I do to have the things that I have only to see people not having to work and having nicer things then I do.

[kc0iv]

The Supreme Court has been a "Political Court" for years. All that has changed is it has changed from a "liberal" court to a "conservative" court.

As to the ruling itself. When you read JUSTICE SCALIA's opinion I think you will see he did address the "militia" aspect. He goes into detail of the difference between a militia service and individual right. He also explains why the 2nd amendment was written the way it was.

I think once you read the opinion I would hope you see it is a well written opinion. Written for both lawyers and layman.

He also expains why the dissent’s interpretation is wrong.

His opinion also address the limitation, to some degree, what the states can restrict on certain types of weapons. Since the court was not ask to explain the full meaning of the second amendment with all its possible outcomes when it comes to types of weapons I think you unfairly judged the court.

As to the D.C. ban having no effect I totally disagree. Yes there is no doubt illegal guns can be found both in D.C. and the surrounding area. What this ruling has done it allow home-owners to legally own a gun and have it in such away it can be readily used for self-defense. It also says that the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license, assuming the person is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, to carry it in the home.

BTW this was a two part ruling. One address the "individual rights" and the other address the "trigger lock."


kc0iv

[golfhobo]

Well, I am a firm believer that I should be able to own any type of firearm I wish to desire or can afford.

So were the "nuts" in Waco! Now... I'm not saying they intended some sort of action AGAINST American troops, but what if they had been a Muslim Terrorist organization? You STILL think that anyone IN America should have the right to stockpile assault weapons?

Some of these so called bans are going to outlaw alot of semi automatic hunting rifles also and that is not right.

If you NEED a "semi" to kill a deer, you need to take up "air hockey!"

I hunt and target shoot along with all around plinking with most everything in my cabinet.

What is this "plinking" thing? I'm not familiar with the term? I don't REALLY want to spoil you fun. I just want to save lives! Sounds to ME like you should enlist in Dubya's War and go "plink" a few terroists! IF you have the B@lls!

As for the Welfare thing. It should be abolished along with other free money people get. I am sick of my dollar supporting lazy arsed people.

And "I" am sick of MY tax dollars going to support tax breaks for the rich who don't NEED it! AND, for corporate America who will use them to send jobs overseas, so they can get RICHER!

It just burns me that I have to work as hard as I do to have the things that I have only to see people not having to work and having nicer things then I do.

I understand this, really I do! I am all FOR "welfare reform" as President Clinton proposed! I don't see that President Dubya has even spent a day THINKING about it! His time is consumed with thoughts of bombing countries populated with "brown people" especially if they disagree with his Religious beliefs!

Wars cause INFLATION! For economic reasons, if nothing else, they should be the LAST resort.... not a planned governmental policy, as this war has been PROVED to be!

When our government stops spending Billions of dollars on this "trumped up" war, I will listen to yoiur complainst about a few Millions spent on welfare.

Deal?

[Rev.Vassago]

Between the various comments I have read around the WWW there are a lot of people who truly have no clue what the supreme court ruling really means.

All this ruling says is that it is unconstitutional for cities, states, and the feds to make a blanket ban on firearms. In other words they can not come in and say...No handguns, as DC, Chicago and a few other cities have done.

That isn't what the ruling said at all. Sheesh, and you have the nerve to call other people clueless.

[Rat]

Some people just don't get it I quess.

Plinking is going out and shooting cans or other things you don't want anymore.


Semi auto deer rifles are actually nice shooting. They have less kick which gives better target aquisition if you should miss while shooting at a whitetail deer that is moving across a field in double overdrive.


Dubya's war as you call it is not about the color of skin and yes it is a religious war of sorts. It is a war to keep ours and others freedom to seek any religion we see fit without having to worry about someone taking others or us out or slicing off our heads because we are infidels and don't worship Alla.

As for enlisting. Yeap I did that. US Marine Corp, 1989. Was sent home on a medical discharge.

So go try stomping on someone elses feet for a bit there buddy.

[Uturn2001]

Between the various comments I have read around the WWW there are a lot of people who truly have no clue what the supreme court ruling really means.

All this ruling says is that it is unconstitutional for cities, states, and the feds to make a blanket ban on firearms. In other words they can not come in and say...No handguns, as DC, Chicago and a few other cities have done.

That isn't what the ruling said at all. Sheesh, and you have the nerve to call other people clueless.

For the most part what I said is accurate. All this ruling means is that it is unconstitutional for the government to have blanket bans on types of weapons. The case ended up at the Supreme Court because of a law suite challenging the DC handgun ban which a lower court ruled that the ban was unlawful.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court found that the right to bear arms does not apply just in connection with service in a militia, as some have claimed, but rather is protected in a much broader context. The court upheld a lower court’s decision that an outright ban on handguns in Washington – which had the country’s strictest gun control legislation – was unconstitutional. In other words: if you wish to keep a gun at home for “traditionally lawful purposes�, including self-defence, you may.

From HERE
Which is just one of hundreds of news accounts of the ruling.

Now if you have a different opinion on what the ruling says or means then please share it.

[Rev.Vassago]

The ruling had nothing to do with Chicago and "a few other cities".

[kc0iv]

I guess it would depend on who you are calling "nuts" in Waco. The Branch Davidians or Attorney General Janet Reno?

I ask you a question. When did it become legal for the government to use tanks and Blackhawk helicopters on civilians? Last time I checked it is illegal to use the military against civilians per the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. In addition why was the Delta Force and the British Strategic Air Service in Waco during the siege? Is this the type of operation you think the military should be involved in against private civilians?

Another question on Waco. When did it become illegal for a civilian to own non military firearms? All the weapons they found at the Branch Davidians compound were legal firearms. The Davidians were running a very profitable gun business. They were working with a gun deal named Henry McMahon, who held a Class III dealer's license allowing him to legally own, sell, and buy, any type of weapon.

Why did Attorney General Reno lie to Congress about the use of pyrotechnic devices? See: http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/24/fbi.waco/ Do you think it alright for an attorney general to lie to Congress? Or cover-up for the actions of BTF, FBI, and use false claims before a judge to get a search warrant?

Remember this is the same Attorney General Reno that oversaw the FBI that attack Randy Weaver and ended up paying over $2 million dollars in an out-of-court settlement to Weaver and his daughters.

You wonder why many believe they should have firearms? Well with the actions of people like Attorney General Reno maybe they should be concerned.

You talk about a "trumped up" war by Bush. How many wars have the Democrats got the U.S.A. involved in? How many billion of dollars has the U.S.A. spent in those wars?

You say a few million in welfare? Try over $234 billion in the Clinton budget. And not one dime for the work program he promised in speech after speech. Read the true Bill Clinton on welfare reform at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...48/ai_18614085

kc0iv

[Rat]

I along with millions hoep and pray that we can stop this needless removal of our firearm rights. background checks are fine in my book but to deprive me totally of owning the types of firearms I care to own is unconstitutional.

[golfhobo]

I along with millions hope and pray that we can stop this needless removal of our firearm rights. background checks are fine in my book but to deprive me totally of owning the types of firearms I care to own is unconstitutional.

Rat, this is a rational response, but I STILL have to point out a couple of things.

1) YOUR book is okay with me.... but, NOT with the NRA and the "gun lobbyists." They want NO background checks.... OR only an immediate one. They won't stand for a "reasonable" backgound check of a few days! EVEN with computers, there are too many chances for people to "hack" the records, for example, and come up "clean" on a QUICK check! IF you have no "CRIMINAL INTENT" in buying this weapon, you should have NO objection to a FULL background check that can't be easily "skirted."

THIS KIND OF PRACTICE is what allowed the 9/11 terrorists to get access to the planes that caused so much damage that day! The Consitution (actually the Bill of Rights) gives you protection against "unreasonable search and seizure." It does NOT give you carte blanche against REASONABLE investigation by authorities as to your "RIGHTS" (which CAN be restricted,) to purchase or OWN a firearm!

2) The fact that the Constitution gives you the RIGHT to own firearms, does NOT prohibit the government from placing "restrictions" on the types of "arms" you can own and bear. I have the "RIGHT" to pursue happiness... but not at 100 mph on the freeway! There will ALWAYS be "restrictions" on our rights. But, I hope those BASIC rights will never be revoked.

3) I'm an avid photographer. I LIKE taking pictures. But, the government has the RIGHT to "restrict" me from taking pictures of certain "secret" facilities. They can't take away my right to OWN a camera, OR to take pictures.... but, they CAN place restrictions on it! This is what our Legislators DO (when not taking a junket at our expense!)

There has NEVER been ANY form of "government" in all of history, including that of Ghengis Khan, that didn't place SOME restrictions on its people! The most BARBARIC of societies lived under the "restrictions" of some "power" that protected its OWN interests. GET OVER IT!