GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-15-2013, 22:10   #1
pipedreams
Member
 
pipedreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: S. E. Iowa
Posts: 3,922
Antonin Scalia says gun control is heading to Supreme Court

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, decrying America's demonization of guns, is predicting that the parade of new gun control laws, cheered on by President Obama, will hit the Supreme Court soon, possibly settling for ever the types of weapons that can be owned.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/arti...3#.UR8GVfJS6rn
__________________
NRA Patron Member
GOA Life Member


Never look down on anybody, unless you're helping them up.
pipedreams is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 22:51   #2
ithaca_deerslayer
Senior Member
 
ithaca_deerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 19,731
Is that the article where he mentions teaching Keagan to hunt

It be outright funny if she comes out as pro-gun.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
ithaca_deerslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 22:55   #3
pipedreams
Member
 
pipedreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: S. E. Iowa
Posts: 3,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer View Post
Is that the article where he mentions teaching Keagan to hunt

It be outright funny if she comes out as pro-gun.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
Yes..............
__________________
NRA Patron Member
GOA Life Member


Never look down on anybody, unless you're helping them up.
pipedreams is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 00:36   #4
hogship
It's MY Island
 
hogship's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northwest territory, pardner!
Posts: 12,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer View Post
Is that the article where he mentions teaching Keagan to hunt

It be outright funny if she comes out as pro-gun.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
Yes.....It mentions that Elana Keagan harvested a whitetail doe in Wyoming.

Familiarizing her with firearms isn't a bad thing, but I am not feeling very good about this at all.

What Scalia needs to do is teach her about what the constitution means.....and, if she is to uphold it, it really doesn't matter if she is pro or anti-gun.......the constitution is what it is, and it's about maintaining the relationship between "the people" and a militia. Because the second amendment is one sentence, and there is no room for doubt that arming private citizens for no other purpose than that of military preparedness is the sole focus, and objective of the document.

I'm getting really tired of hearing about hunting, and self defense. These things are included in the total meaning of the second amendment by default.....but they are not in any way, the purpose, or intent of the second amendment.

Why is Scalia not mentioning these things? I'll tell what I think all this means.........he is ready to fold under pressure, and not uphold the constitution for the very reason it was written, or exists.



ooc
__________________
NRA/VFW life, Harley Davidson FXDX, very patriotic!
Old iron pumper w/pony tail, Christian, lathe artist
Stevie Ray Vaughn, Janis Joplin, Johnny Cash
Visit my Vietnam photo album, 1968-69 click on link

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
hogship is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 01:21   #5
TK-421
Senior Member
 
TK-421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 6,599
I could be wrong here, but doesn't the supreme court generally deal with stuff only after it's taken effect? Meaning that the gun laws have to be passed before the Supreme Court can rule on whether or not they're constitutional? Or can they rule on them while they're still in the bill stage?
TK-421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 02:25   #6
hogship
It's MY Island
 
hogship's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northwest territory, pardner!
Posts: 12,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-421 View Post
I could be wrong here, but doesn't the supreme court generally deal with stuff only after it's taken effect? Meaning that the gun laws have to be passed before the Supreme Court can rule on whether or not they're constitutional? Or can they rule on them while they're still in the bill stage?
Good question, and I'm not the one who can definitively answer it, but it's my belief that you are correct. I also believe it must be taken up in a lower court, and ruled on there first, as well.....then appealed to the SCOTUS, before it can be ruled on by that court. A prior ruling can stand as is, or taken up by the SCOTUS, which has the ability to decide if a ruling can be taken up as an issue to be settled, or not.

Am I right, or wrong about that?

ooc
__________________
NRA/VFW life, Harley Davidson FXDX, very patriotic!
Old iron pumper w/pony tail, Christian, lathe artist
Stevie Ray Vaughn, Janis Joplin, Johnny Cash
Visit my Vietnam photo album, 1968-69 click on link

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by hogship; 02-16-2013 at 02:57..
hogship is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 06:41   #7
pipedreams
Member
 
pipedreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: S. E. Iowa
Posts: 3,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-421 View Post
I could be wrong here, but doesn't the supreme court generally deal with stuff only after it's taken effect? Meaning that the gun laws have to be passed before the Supreme Court can rule on whether or not they're constitutional? Or can they rule on them while they're still in the bill stage?
I believe your correct but keep in mind some states such as NY are already passing laws which they could rule on.
__________________
NRA Patron Member
GOA Life Member


Never look down on anybody, unless you're helping them up.
pipedreams is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 09:16   #8
ithaca_deerslayer
Senior Member
 
ithaca_deerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 19,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogship View Post
Good question, and I'm not the one who can definitively answer it, but it's my belief that you are correct. I also believe it must be taken up in a lower court, and ruled on there first, as well.....then appealed to the SCOTUS, before it can be ruled on by that court. A prior ruling can stand as is, or taken up by the SCOTUS, which has the ability to decide if a ruling can be taken up as an issue to be settled, or not.

Am I right, or wrong about that?

ooc
A big reason for the SC to take a case is because federal appeals courts in different districts have come to different conclusions.

I believe it was a Maryland case that thus far says someone has the right to a CCW permit. And a NY case that thus far says someone does not have the right to a CCW permit.

Both of these cases made it to the federal level, but in different districts, and got two different answers. Thus the SC needs to step in and settle the question.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
ithaca_deerslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 09:38   #9
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 474
US v Miller (1939) said that the 2nd protects the right to own a weapon that is of common use to the military in order to have an equally armed militia in the US. The precedent has been set, now we just need the SCOTUS to uphold that precedent and stop these rogue states from trampling on our rights.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 09:53   #10
Cambo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,911
Isn't Scalia the one in 2008 who talked about "reasonable restrictions" for certain types of weapons? That quote is being used up and down by the anti gun scum.
__________________
Browning Hi Power, the Ultimate 9mm
Cambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 10:08   #11
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambo View Post
Isn't Scalia the one in 2008 who talked about "reasonable restrictions" for certain types of weapons? That quote is being used up and down by the anti gun scum.
The only explanation he gave for "reasonable restrictions" was concerning shoulder launched rockets. Originally, he addressed this by saying he thinks it will be up to the court to finally settle what is allowed or not. Again, he has cited US v Miller before in saying that guns of common use are what can be protected under the 2nd, which includes the AR15 as it is common use with the military.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 10:20   #12
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
US v Miller (1939) said that the 2nd protects the right to own a weapon that is of common use to the military in order to have an equally armed militia in the US. The precedent has been set, now we just need the SCOTUS to uphold that precedent and stop these rogue states from trampling on our rights.
And at the same time restricted short barrel shotguns and anything full auto.

It was a big mess that I looked into quite a bit when Alan Gura and Bob Levy were doing Heller, but I still don't really understand it. I'm not sure anyone does. Miller, or anyone representing him, did not show up.

http://web.archive.org/web/201002170...d=41&Itemid=53

I'm not sure if this link will work, as the site doesn't exist anymore, but it's on the way back machine.
do lot nam narsis do boi cao cap xe day doi cao cap cho be chan vay cong so thoi trang cong so gia re chup anh cho be
gunlawnew.org
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Quote:
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...

Last edited by Syclone538; 05-15-2013 at 05:46..
Syclone538 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 10:33   #13
SpectreRider
Armed Citizen
 
SpectreRider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SoFla... want to move to America.
Posts: 929
The ar15 is not in common use in the US military... The M16 is. Maybe we will get an expansion of what is commonly allowed.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more. -neil peart
What too many in America are missing is a sense of personal responsibility. -me
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
SpectreRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 10:42   #14
HarleyGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
The only explanation he gave for "reasonable restrictions" was concerning shoulder launched rockets. Originally, he addressed this by saying he thinks it will be up to the court to finally settle what is allowed or not. Again, he has cited US v Miller before in saying that guns of common use are what can be protected under the 2nd, which includes the AR15 as it is common use with the military.
Unless I'm very mistaken, the military uses a select-fire, fully automatic, M-16 carbine, as does many law enforcement agencies here in the U.S.
However, I doubt that since full autos have been "regulated" since 1934(?).
I doubt there's little chance that they will ever be obtainable (mainly due to the price) for the average guy but I do believe that we can protect our rights to own pistols and rifles that use semi-auto technology which has been around for more than a century.

The more anti-gun folks (i.e. Piers Morgan etc.) will occasionally toss in the inflamatory and complete B.S. about rocket launchers, bazookas and tanks, which I doubt any sane supporter of the Second Amendment, or SCOTUS would agree with.

Last edited by HarleyGuy; 02-16-2013 at 10:44..
HarleyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 11:25   #15
snerd
Senior Member
 
snerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 6,564
After Obamacare, anyone who thinks they will rule Constitutionally on guns is delusional.
__________________
November 2014 - The Republicans Take the Senate & Keep the House! Get Out and Rock the Vote!! Yes, YOU!!
snerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 13:57   #16
Comrade Bork
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer View Post
A big reason for the SC to take a case is because federal appeals courts in different districts have come to different conclusions.

I believe it was a Maryland case that thus far says someone has the right to a CCW permit. And a NY case that thus far says someone does not have the right to a CCW permit.

Both of these cases made it to the federal level, but in different districts, and got two different answers. Thus the SC needs to step in and settle the question.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
Last December a Fed District court pretty much directed Illinois, the only remaining State with no CCW law, to adopt one by about June

That was how Ohio got theirs.
Comrade Bork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 14:07   #17
SPIN2010
Searching ...
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: On the move ... again!
Posts: 1,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by snerd View Post
After Obamacare, anyone who thinks they will rule Constitutionally on guns is delusional.
On the money!
SPIN2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 14:40   #18
Electrikkoolaid
Grape flavored!
 
Electrikkoolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 807
Isn't this the same supreme court that decided government can condemn private property under immanent domain and turn it over for private development?

Not feeling very optimistic about reversing anything, and it will take years of working through delays before it makes it to SCOTUS -- by which time Obama may have one or more of his nominees in place.
__________________
We need to stop asking "who will pay for healthcare" and start asking "why does it cost so much?"
Electrikkoolaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 15:21   #19
GAFinch
Senior Member
 
GAFinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambo View Post
Isn't Scalia the one in 2008 who talked about "reasonable restrictions" for certain types of weapons? That quote is being used up and down by the anti gun scum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrikkoolaid View Post
Isn't this the same supreme court that decided government can condemn private property under immanent domain and turn it over for private development?

Not feeling very optimistic about reversing anything, and it will take years of working through delays before it makes it to SCOTUS -- by which time Obama may have one or more of his nominees in place.
Almost all constitutional laws/amendments are subject to reasonable restrictions. It doesn't seem like Scalia is making threats, just stating a fact. He firmly believes that the Constitution is a dead document that needs to be upheld based on its original interpretation, not re-examined during every socio-political fad that comes along.

It does normally take years for challenges to work their way up to the SCOTUS, but it looks Scalia is intentionally trying to speed up the process and lock in various pro-2A decisions before Obama finishes flipping the court to progressives. He's smart enough to know from history what will happen if the public is disarmed.
__________________
Fear the government that fears your guns.
GAFinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 17:39   #20
writwing
Senior Member
 
writwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer View Post
Is that the article where he mentions teaching Keagan to hunt

It be outright funny if she comes out as pro-gun.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?

As you know second amendment is not about hunting. Leopards don't change their spots. If it goes to the SCOTUS we are in trouble.
__________________
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. T. Roosevelt
writwing is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:28.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 787
228 Members
559 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31