Local foundation files brief in 2nd Amendment case

M Catts wrote:

<quoted text>
Got news for ya. USSC decisions apply nation wide!

That is not true.
The justices have 100 percent discretion in limiting their decisions to the case at hand and have done so many times.

It is done on a case by case basis and this case is dealing with D.C. law and Washington D.C. is not a state and is treated differently in many cases.

Can you name the two senators from D.C.?

Trin Tragula wrote:

<quoted text>
To the contrary. Any decision they make will affect everyone by setting precedent. If the court rules in favor of an individual right, then DC's gun ban will lose more ground, and it will be harder for gun ban rules to come into existence. If they rule the 2nd amendment is not an individual right, then cities across the nation will use that decision to model their gun ban laws after DC's law.

The court does not have to rule that way . they have the power to rule only on two basic points ,
1) Does a resident of D.C. have a right to have an operating firearm in the home.

2) Does Washington D.C. city council have an obligation to "protect" it's citizens as it sees fit.

I would hope that they would extend their ruling to answer far more broad questions but I would not bet on it.

Denise Lang wrote:

It amazes me how many people do not know or understand the first part of the 26 words, "A well-regulated militia,..."
nor are aware of how much more likely it is that a member of the household will be shot if there is a gun in the house.
My late husband went to gunsmith school and we took our son for hunter safety course so that he could hunt with his dad so I'm not opposed to guns, per se, but I am opposed to ignorance!

You only used the four words you selected out of the entire amendment to qualify to make you point but in doing so it invalidates your opinion.

The text can only be judged in it's entirety anything else is pushing an agenda.

Hey GEErnst,

Why don't you tell all the nice people here how you could not get your rambling propaganda published in a Major Newspaper (Washington Post wasn't it?, even if you paid for it, before the Emerson decision?

Tell them how you tried to pose as a legitimate organization by usurping the Potomac Institute name trying to gain legitimacy. How did that turn out?

Where Is My America wrote:

<quoted text>That is not true.
The justices have 100 percent discretion in limiting their decisions to the case at hand and have done so many times.
It is done on a case by case basis and this case is dealing with D.C. law and Washington D.C. is not a state and is treated differently in many cases.
Can you name the two senators from D.C.?

Your pretty funny as well as being uneducated.
ANY USSC ruling can and has been used as the basis of over turning other laws in other states!
Seldom if EVER do you see a law challenged that the USSC has already ruled on where it is not ruled the same as the USSC decision!
By your thinking then the USSC should not even hear any case from DC because they are not a state, and there for would have no jurisdiction anyway?
Stick around you might get a real education not to mention your kind of like a slinky.
Not good for much but ya can't help but smile when you see one falling down a set of stairs. Good for the entertainment value alone!

"Can you name the two senators from D.C.?"

I can name 100...51 presented a signed brief in support of Heller.

Why? Are 'citizens' of D.C. not "people" entitled to all rights under the BOR?

old hand wrote:

"Can you name the two senators from D.C.?"
I can name 100...51 presented a signed brief in support of Heller.
Why? Are 'citizens' of D.C. not "people" entitled to all rights under the BOR?

Well no, not acording to "where is my america"

M Catts wrote:

<quoted text>
Your pretty funny as well as being uneducated.
ANY USSC ruling can and has been used as the basis of over turning other laws in other states!
Seldom if EVER do you see a law challenged that the USSC has already ruled on where it is not ruled the same as the USSC decision!
By your thinking then the USSC should not even hear any case from DC because they are not a state, and there for would have no jurisdiction anyway?
Stick around you might get a real education not to mention your kind of like a slinky.
Not good for much but ya can't help but smile when you see one falling down a set of stairs. Good for the entertainment value alone!

The law you are speaking about only applies in D.C.
That alone is enough to invalidate your statement but it will be up to the Justices to decide how wide or narrow the scope of any decision will be.

Your use of negative images towards me when the topic is how Justices may rule only makes you look immature.

old hand wrote:

"Can you name the two senators from D.C.?"
I can name 100...51 presented a signed brief in support of Heller.
Why? Are 'citizens' of D.C. not "people" entitled to all rights under the BOR?

Originally Washington D.C. was set up as a Federal enclave and the federal government did not want citizens to have the power to challenge the Federal Government the way one may challenge a State Government.

The best way to repeal this would be to grant D.C. statehood but this has always been shot down by Congress.

"The law you are speaking about only applies in D.C."

Ummm, NO. Read again the question before the court, it is a Second Amendment case and deals with the "right of the people" to keep and bear arms.

"That alone is enough to invalidate your statement but it will be up to the Justices to decide how wide or narrow the scope of any decision will be."

A favorable ruling upholding the Second Amendment right of "the people" who are not members of an organized militia to keep and bear arms, will be broad by definition.

Do keep trying to marginalize though...

"Originally Washington D.C. was set up as a Federal enclave and the federal government did not want citizens to have the power to challenge the Federal Government the way one may challenge a State Government."

Aww gee Lucy, you didn't read the Preamble to the BOR nor Hamilton #58 did you? Clue: rights belong to "the people"; powers are delegated(limited) in Article 1, section 8 which are few and well defined. The Constitution limited powers of Government and the BOR listed unalienable rights. Why the confusion here?

old hand wrote:

"Originally Washington D.C. was set up as a Federal enclave and the federal government did not want citizens to have the power to challenge the Federal Government the way one may challenge a State Government."
Aww gee Lucy, you didn't read the Preamble to the BOR nor Hamilton #58 did you? Clue: rights belong to "the people"; powers are delegated(limited) in Article 1, section 8 which are few and well defined. The Constitution limited powers of Government and the BOR listed unalienable rights. Why the confusion here?

I hope you understand that question needs to be put forth to any of the following .
Congress , The Supreme Court or the American People through a constitutional amendment

old hand wrote:

"The law you are speaking about only applies in D.C."
Ummm, NO. Read again the question before the court, it is a Second Amendment case and deals with the "right of the people" to keep and bear arms.
"That alone is enough to invalidate your statement but it will be up to the Justices to decide how wide or narrow the scope of any decision will be."
A favorable ruling upholding the Second Amendment right of "the people" who are not members of an organized militia to keep and bear arms, will be broad by definition.
Do keep trying to marginalize though...

I am a strong gun rights advocate but this case is clearly a question of The Washington D.C. city council's right or not to limit firearms within the city.

M Catts wrote:

<quoted text>
Your pretty funny as well as being uneducated.
ANY USSC ruling can and has been used as the basis of over turning other laws in other states!
Stick around you might get a real education not to mention your kind of like a slinky.
Not good for much but ya can't help but smile when you see one falling down a set of stairs. Good for the entertainment value alone!

M Catts:

Your wit, education, and argumentum ad hominem notwithstanding, have you ever heard of something called "selective incorporation?" The Second Amendment is unincorporated against state and local infringement. Thus, a SCOTUS ruling on the Second Amendment will apply directly to the District, as well as to the Federal Government. It will not apply to state and local governments. Incorporation of the 2A will be another case, for another time.

Something for all of you to consider who are in support of Gun Control and the negation of the Second Ammendment...

During the second world war when the Nazi's invaded the Netherlands, the first thing that they did was to go to all of the local police stations and collect what was their equivilent of a yellow sheet. They then went to everyone of those people to seize their guns. If they could not produce the weapon they were shot on the spot.

To change the Constitution of the United States requires a unanimous concenious of every state in the Union. I have yet to see a Constitutional referendum on the issue of gun control. There is absolutely no provision for changing the Bill of Rights.

"I am a strong gun rights advocate but this case is clearly a question of The Washington D.C. city council's right or not to limit firearms within the city."

Perhaps you owe it to yourself and others not to dissemble and garble what is actually an issue in the case?

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php...

Court rules prevent any issue not heard on appeal and brought before it not to consider any other question(s).

There are quite a few folks who seem to want to inject questions not in evidence. This is distracting and irrelevant.

"I am a strong gun rights advocate but this case is clearly a question of The Washington D.C. city council's right or not to limit firearms within the city."

Aww, you missed it didn't you? Government at any level does not have RIGHTS. They have delegated powers. All RIGHTS belong to THE PEOPLE.

Public education is apparently not what it is cracked up to be is it?

"Thus, a SCOTUS ruling on the Second Amendment will apply directly to the District, as well as to the Federal Government. It will not apply to state and local governments. Incorporation of the 2A will be another case, for another time."

OH? Really? An affirmative ruling in support of Heller on appeal may/could well indeed lead to an incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment. The Circuit courts are divided and there is the question!

Almost all civil rights cases mention the rights of "the people" to..."keep and bear arms" including Roe v. Wade. The court has never brought up the Presser case and can cite any ruling leading to a decision of "an individual right" and how it arrived at that conclusion. Even the ACLU is supporting Heller...

The very fact that both Miller and Heller had/have "standing" is indicitive in itself.

The Castillio case itself overturned many gun laws, about 30 or 40 some odd the best I recall.
Lopez put a limit on the claim to regulate by the Interstate commerce clause.

No wonder the anti Second folks are worried? Of course we will see soon enough, the arguements will be presented near the end of the month and be released the same day. A ruling should be made in the next several months putting an end to all the speculation. I can wait...

Whoops, should have been the ACRU not the ACLU. Sorry.