Just heard on the radio the SCOTUS is meeting now. Should hear a ruling this afternoon or tomorrow morning.

I think they will say the handgun ban is unconstitutional but the gov is allowed to make REASONABLE :shaking: restrictions on firearms.

Just heard on the radio the SCOTUS is meeting now. Should hear a ruling this afternoon or tomorrow morning.

I think they will say the handgun ban is unconstitutional but the gov is allowed to make REASONABLE :shaking: restrictions on firearms.

They release decisions at 10am.
Not going to be today...

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Just heard on the radio the SCOTUS is meeting now. Should hear a ruling this afternoon or tomorrow morning.

I think they will say the handgun ban is unconstitutional but the gov is allowed to make REASONABLE :shaking: restrictions on firearms.


Praying:(

any news on this today?...i'll be monitoring tomorrow.

10 am EST Wednesday or Thursday now.

You can hear and read the arguments here: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/argument/

Instead of reading the opinion I need to be studying for a fawking test that morning.

Fawk!

Go to this link and let it run in the background with the sound on

http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?option=com_altcaster&task=siteviewaltcast&altcast_code=909aaea565

It beeps when something is posted, and the opinion will be up with 5 or 10 minutes after 7 AM PST.

10:21 Tom Goldstein - Guns is not being decided today. Last opinion coming now.

10:27 Ben Winograd - The Chief Justice has announced from the courtroom that the Court will issue all of its remaining opinions tomorrow at 10 a.m. Eastern.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Yeap, looks like DC-Heller will be 10AM 6-26 :D

I think this will be appropriate here...

http://forpayment.com/contents/media/twiddling_thumbs.gif

I think this will be appropriate here...

http://forpayment.com/contents/media/twiddling_thumbs.gif

That's a funny way to load mags. :flipoff2:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Yeap, looks like DC-Heller will be 10AM 6-26 :D

Heller goes to Washington, a suspense novel.


Bastids are killing me here.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Note to readers: beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern, we will provide “live” coverage of the final session of the Supreme Court term. The Justices are expected to release opinions in all three remaining cases, including the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) on the scope of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

heller will be last

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns


Email this Story

Jun 26, 10:20 AM (ET)

By MARK SHERMAN

(AP) The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, Wednesday, June 25, 2008. The Supreme Court has struck...
Full Image



WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

as it should be.

Woohoo!

Nor is it at all clear to me how the majority decides
which loaded “arms” a homeowner may keep. The majority
says that that Amendment protects those weapons
“typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful
purposes.” Ante, at 53. This definition conveniently excludes
machineguns, but permits handguns, which the
majority describes as “the most popular weapon chosen by
Americans for self-defense in the home.” Ante, at 57; see
also ante, at 54–55. But what sense does this approach
make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress
and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of
machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect
their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find
that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the
individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun.
On the majority’s reasoning, if tomorrow someone
invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous selfdefense
weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it
immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no
longer possess the constitutional authority to do so. In
essence, the majority determines what regulations are
permissible by looking to see what existing regulations
permit. There is no basis for believing that the Framers
intended such circular reasoning.


AR-15's are already very popular, does this make them unbannable now? (or any ban on them unconstitutional?)

Is this going to pave the way for overturning the NFA?

The problem I have with this is that it doesn't answer the draconian process that getting a CCW can be in some states.

The Second Amendment wasn't fully answered there... we're still not allowed to "Bear Arms".

I know it's baby steps, but come on people! When the SA was written, people openly carried wherever they chose to.

Can I get an Amen!!!!

Amen

Can I get an Amen!!!!

Amen, x2

i'm very stoked in the larger sense of the 2nd amendment being viewed as i believe it to be written by the highest court in the land.

i'm just wondering how it will effect me in the shitty state of california. I hope change starts trickling towards me...:)

I'm not celebrating yet. I suspect that instead of an everlasting YES or NO on a written in stone, uninfringed right to bear arms (given by god, or creator, or rights as man), we now have an acceptance of a civil right (given by the government), that will be open to further attacks, and now at the federal level.
DC is still allowed to require registration, and this part: “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” doesn't sit well with me. Is an AK-47 "typically possessed", and is possessing one simply in case a "law abiding citizen" needs to oppose a tyranical government going to be a "lawful purpose"? I suspect some backdoor legislation allowing for "reasonable restrictions".

Free at last, free at last I thank God I'm free at last ......

I'm not celebrating yet. I suspect that instead of an everlasting YES or NO on a written in stone, uninfringed right to bear arms (given by god, or creator, or rights as man), we now have an acceptance of a civil right (given by the government), that will be open to further attacks, and now at the federal level.
DC is still allowed to require registration, and this part: “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” doesn't sit well with me. Is an AK-47 "typically possessed", and is possessing one simply in case a "law abiding citizen" needs to oppose a tyranical government going to be a "lawful purpose"? I suspect some backdoor legislation allowing for "reasonable restrictions".


You're right, the fight is now on like a mofo. Make no mistake, the anti's took one on the chin, but they're not out. Now is NOT the time to give up.

It was, IMO, an important first step in our fight.

This was the first peice of news in a long time that made me sleep better at night.

This was the first peice of news in a long time that made me sleep better at night.

I had to jump on the PBB first thing when I woke up to make sure it wasn't a dream. :grinpimp:

Is an AK-47 "typically possessed", and is possessing one simply in case a "law abiding citizen" needs to oppose a tyranical government going to be a "lawful purpose"?.

It is these days! I wonder how many of them are out there, sold in kit form or assembled by manufacturers, in the US?

As for the second part we must remain vigilant and keep being vocal.

It is these days! I wonder how many of them are out there, sold in kit form or assembled by manufacturers, in the US?

As for the second part we must remain vigilant and keep being vocal.

Right, but who decides "typically posessed" "law abiding" "lawful purpose" ?
Now, the second ammendment is open for further interpretation, this is huge.
The ruling said that a citizen has the right to protect themselves in the home, but made no mention of protecting yourself outside the house, so now it the second ammendment can be negotiated. I havn't had the time to research this yet, and will not breath easy yet.

It is these days! I wonder how many of them are out there, sold in kit form or assembled by manufacturers, in the US?

As for the second part we must remain vigilant and keep being vocal.

According to Military Channel's Top 10: Combat Rifles, over 50,000,000 have been produced. If even 10% of those have been imported into the US, well... you can do the math. :eek: I have a feeling 10% would be very conservative.