NavigationBanners![]()
Active forum topicsRecent blog postsUser loginWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 514 guests online.
Online users:
|
DC v Heller DecisionSubmitted by Bill St. Clair on Sat, 2008-06-28 08:22.
As you've likely read everywhere, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, June 26, 2008 on DC v Heller. They held the decision of the lower court, commanding DC to give Mr. Heller a permit to possess his pistol in his house, assuming he hadn't lost his right to do so due to a felony or mental illness. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority. Justice Stevens wrote the dissent. I skimmed the opinion, but not the dissent. The general philosophy there was good. We have an individual right to keep and bear arms (properly defined as possessing and carrying around), which predates and is protected by the Second Amendment. But, and it's a big but, the state may restrict this right with licensing and registration, and concealed carry may be restricted. Typical narrow ruling that really only forces "shall issue" for DC's licenses, but will likely eventually force all state licensing to be "shall issue". It might also make it difficult to ban open carry. Scalia also forbade the banning of whole classes of generally-used weapons, but whether this will be found to forbid so-called "assault weapons" bans remains to be seen. Bottom line: They won't be coming door to door to collect our guns any time soon, so there shouldn't be a need for a shooting war on that account. Had the decision gone with the minority, I would be expecting the war to begin soon. Here are a bunch of links I collected:
add new comment | quote | 1112 reads
( categories: RKBA )
|
BlogrollMike VanderboeghQuotesEvery man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. -- L. Neil Smith Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings. -- L. Neil Smith Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. -- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report (PDF) on gun control laws Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap") "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP" Why Did It Have to be... Guns? Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? -- L. Neil Smith "Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you." -- Mike Vanderboegh Also from The Atlanta Declaration: ... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party. -- L. Neil Smith This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion. -- Vin Suprynowicz The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war. -- Bill St. Clair TTLB |
Recent comments
4 hours 11 min ago
3 days 5 hours ago
5 days 23 hours ago
1 week 2 hours ago
1 week 14 hours ago
1 week 21 hours ago
1 week 21 hours ago
1 week 1 day ago
1 week 1 day ago
1 week 1 day ago