The Results of this will be-----

[greensideout]

The conclusion that the Judges make will have a huge impact on those who want to ban them and those who beleive we have a right to bear them!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/wa...ner=MYPERSONAL

[sparkie]

They can figure it out, if they want,,,, But it will not change my opinion, or my ownership. Fork them, in advance.

[sparkie]

Guns,,,, Buy a length of 4" drain pipe at home depot,,,With 2 end caps, and glue. grease up your guns, seal them in plastic, bury them in the back yard, Tell the gistapo they were stolen. Your best shot at being a loyal American.

[OLE SARG]

I'm with sparkie on this one --- FORK them all in advance. You know the saying, "When they pry it from my cold dead hand!!!" ---- Ain't nobody taking my gun/guns and AMMO!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

[kato811]

if they ever do try to thak the firearms away from us the will runn out of people willing to try and take them from people long before they get to us

[zx6rdr]

Ole Sarg- You Took The Quote Right Outta My Mouth....

They Aint Gettin My Guns And They Never Will!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[yellowwing]

High court should unholster the 2nd Amendment
By Robert A. Levy
November 21, 2007

The Supreme Court says it will review a lower court's blockbuster opinion in Parker v. District of Columbia, the first federal appellate opinion to overturn a gun control law - Washington, D.C.'s - on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals. Oral arguments likely will be held this spring, with a decision expected before June 30. I am co-counsel for the plaintiffs and am one of the attorneys who initiated the lawsuit.

The stakes are immense. Very few legal questions stir the passions like gun control. And this round of the courtroom battle will be fought during the heat of the 2008 election. Further, Washington is home to the federal government, making it an appropriate venue to challenge all federal gun laws. Thus, Parker could have an immediate effect not only on D.C. gun regulations but on federal regulations.

Equally important, if the Supreme Court affirms the D.C. circuit's holding, state gun control laws across the nation could be vulnerable to constitutional attack. But before that happens, two other issues would have to be litigated.
The first is the knotty question of whether the Second Amendment can be invoked against state governments. Until 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. But in the aftermath of the Civil War, much of the Bill of Rights was considered "incorporated" by the 14th Amendment to bind the states as well. Regrettably, the incorporation of the Second Amendment has not yet been settled. And that issue did not arise in Parker because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, not a state.

The second question is even more complicated: What restrictions on gun possession and use would be permissible? Almost no one argues that Second Amendment rights are absolute. Indeed, the appeals court acknowledged that Washington might be able to justify such things as concealed-carry restrictions, registration requirements and proficiency testing.

But the Constitution does not permit an across-the-board ban on all handguns, in all homes, for all residents, as in the case of the D.C. ban (except current and retired police officers). Somewhere in the middle, regulations will be deemed constitutional even if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court.

Meanwhile, the high court will have to reexamine its 1939 gun case, United States v. Miller. Its core holding, stripped of confusing clutter, was that protected weapons must be "in common use" and must bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."

Parker is entirely compatible with that holding. Pistols, which are banned in D.C., are self-evidently "in common use," and they have been carried into battle by American troops in every conflict since the Revolutionary War. But a proper reading of the Second Amendment should not attempt to link each and every weapon to the militia - except to note that the grand scheme of the amendment was to ensure that people trained in the use of firearms would be ready for militia service.

Significantly, the Second Amendment refers explicitly to "the right of the people," not the rights of states or the militia. And the Bill of Rights is the section of our Constitution that deals exclusively with individual liberties.

That is why there has been an outpouring of legal scholarship - some from prominent liberals - that recognizes the Second Amendment as securing the right of each individual to keep and bear arms.



Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

[sparkie]

Yea,,,,, But in this day and age,,,, WE'll see, Bro. [ thanks for the hope, anyway].

[Zulu 36]

The tricky part of that case is this: The Black Robes limited their review to a question that addresses specifically the D.C. laws, not all similar laws throughout the country.

However, even if they find the D.C. laws are unconstitutional, how their decision is written will be very important in the ability to "attack" other similar guns bans. It could be written very tightly and narrowly to address only the D.C. question making application to other laws difficult.

On the other hand, the decision could be written more broadly which will still leave open the need for the Supremes to eventually have to review newer lawsuits filed to take advantage of real or perceived loopholes in the D.C. decision (as perceived by both sides of the issue).

In any case, they are not (so far) taking on a definitive yea or nay review of the 2d Amendment. They could in their written opinion, but probably won't.

Here is the actual wording of the order from the Supremes granting certiorari:

07-290 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL. V. HELLER, DICK A.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
the following question: Whether the following provisions - D.C.
Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 - violate the
Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated
with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns
and other firearms for private use in their homes?

[greensideout]

I found this to be interesting.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The danger of the Bill of Rights

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By LETTER OF THE WEEK



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007
I am going prove to you that the right to bear arms is an individual right ... AND a collective right:

Federalist Paper No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton, states:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.
They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

(Column continues below)


They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Now, note that Hamilton says: "Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

Hamilton could have very well said: "Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty to keep and bear arms shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

The same can be said for religion.

Where do you find delegated authority and restrictions? In the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does anyone read where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?

Hamilton was not really "anti-Bill of Rights." His argument was that, if the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution, it would: "... furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. That they ... "might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government."

If it is not restricted by the Constitution ... nor delegated by the same ... there is absolutely no power.

Now, I ask all of you in good faith, can you find anywhere in the Constitution where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?

Unfortunately, Hamilton's worst fears concerning a Bill of Rights have come to light.

C. Cope

[greensideout]

The above article is the printer friendly option from WorldNetDaily. I timed out of edit before I could give credit.

[Zulu 36]

Ah, the Federalist Papers. Some of my favorite reading materials.

In line with that article, it should be noted that nowhere in the Constitution does the Supreme Court have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of anything. The Black Robes "usurped" this authority way back in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison.

Congress could have legislated the Supreme Court out of that business at any time from 1803 until now. Federal courts have no more authority than that granted by Congress (except for the rather small amount of authority granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution). In fact, Congress could (in theory) abolish ALL federal courts except the Supreme Court.

However, I suspect that in 1803, as now, Congress has found that allowing the Robes to "rule" on constitutional questions, in turn, allows the politicians the opportunity to play Pontius Pilate and wash their hands of a law when the Robes throw it out. "Oh, gee. We passed the law. We tried, we really tried. But that mean ol' Supreme Court dumped on us all." Etc.

Plain old simple political shell game.

[greensideout]

"Thompson Touts Gun Rights S.C."


Thompson Touts Gun Rights in S.C.
2007-11-24 16:52:50
By JIM DAVENPORT Associated Press Writer



LADSON, S.C. (AP) — White House hopeful Fred Thompson called his trip down an aisle of rifles, shotguns and pistols at a gun show Saturday "a day in paradise," and criticized his leading Republican opponents for past positions on gun control and abortion.

Talking to reporters after the gun show visit, Thompson singled out former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Giuliani "never met a gun-control bill he didn't like until he started to run for president and now I understand he very much approves of the Supreme Court taking jurisdiction of this Washington, D.C., case which most Second Amendment advocates think will establish that the Second Amendment means what it says and grants individual rights to people to possess firearms," Thompson said. "So, ah, maybe he's changed his mind about that, but his record is clear otherwise."

A Giuliani campaign spokesman was quick to reply by e-mail to Thompson's criticism: "Mayor Giuliani is a strong supporter of the second amendment and believes our focus should be on making sure criminals are the ones who can't get guns. It's the same tough-on-crime approach Rudy took in bringing historic crime reductions to New York City, and we'll match that experience against Fred Thompson's record of chasing moonshiners any day of the week."

Thompson was asked about mailers Romney has sent talking about his abortion opposition and promoting himself as the clear choice on that issue.

"Until about two years ago, when he decided he was going to run for president, Governor Romney was the most adamant pro-choice advocate that I've ever seen," Thompson said. "You know, pull it up on the YouTube sometime of his debates and when he was running for governor and see the fervor with which he held his pro-choice beliefs. Now he's entitled to change his mind, but I don't think that he ought to be casting aspersions on anybody in terms of pro-choice — pro-life, pro-choice — issues," Thompson said.

Saturday was the former Tennessee senator and "Law and Order" actor's second trip to a gun show since launching his late bid for the GOP nomination in September, and followed a campaign stop at a gun shop in New Hampshire Friday.

At the Land and Sky Gun Show, Thompson picked up an old M1 Garand rifle. He also raised an over-and-under Winchester shotgun suitable for the skeet shooting he's been known to do as he made his way through the 200 vendors at a fairgrounds just outside of North Charleston, S.C.

"It's a beautiful day in paradise," Thompson said when greeted by one of the people packing the show's aisles. He added that he wished he could spend more time and money at the show.

Thompson was a hit with James Hill, 65, from Summerville, S.C. "It's absolutely important to come to gun shows," Hill said. Thompson, he said, wins his support because he's strong on Second Amendment gun ownership rights. "He's right where our strength is."

Thompson was asked about illegal immigration several times, including about ending automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. He said he thinks that would require a constitutional amendment. However, he said so-called chain-immigration tied to the birth of the child should be curbed.

"I think if we stop this chain migration that we would really address the issue," Thompson said during a stop at a nearby barbecue restaurant, Thompson.

But people "use an anchor baby to bring in" parents, siblings and others, Thompson said. "It's a good thing for people to have their family, but from a legal immigration standpoint — people are going to come in and have their own children and their own immediate family, but not all this other stuff. I think that is more of the problem than the baby, who has no choice in the matter."

[hrscowboy]

Can anyone tell me why the NRA is worried about supreme Court looking at this???

[grampsdw251]

Subject: A Little Gun Control History Lesson.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



----------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------

I haven't double checked all the above dates and figures but believe they are pretty accurate. They were sent to me by a cousin who is also a Marine.

What I can't understand is; how the hell can our highly educated politicians be so blind to the REAL effects of gun bans? The Australian government spent over 500 million dollars confiscating some 600,000+ guns from its law abiding citizens. One year later robberies and burglaries are up over 44%, and most all other crimes are up substantially. The lawmakers can't figure out why the criminals didn't turn in their guns. Now they have provided the crooks with a huge supply of defenseless prey. How can they be so educated and remain so stupid?