"REGISTRATION" is not normal...etc

ladies and gentlemen,
while my poll on gun registration is not scientific by any means, it does show what i expected. in todays us of a, gun registration is not normal. please in your conversations and even more important, in your mind, do not portait registration as normal, expected nor acceptable. do not accept changes that add registration in exchange for "the right" to have a (hand)gun. the supreme court has said you have the right TO FIREARMS, and that some paper work MAY happen, it did not say you must have paper work.

i have a hard time understanding the attitude of some of my fellow shooters.
NEGATIVE
NEGATIVE
NEGATIVE.....
do you people have any understanding, just how big the heller case decision is ?
this is not some minor issue, not some lower court opinion, it is a confirmation that the plain and simple english, used in the constitition, is JUST that: THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

do not sit back and think the war is over, it is not. now is the time to "CORRECT" the current errors in local laws; the time to confirm, at a local level ,that we as citizens will no longer put up with "infringment" of our rights.


NOW, if you are a negative person, and cannot see the positive side of this issue, please post on your own thread! i'd really like to see some solid positive support for what has happened.

thanks
mike in co

That was exactly what I was trying to say on the "How to Register a Gun in D.C." thread. Registration should not be what we are forced to accept in order to own a gun!

Everybody tells me I'm negative. It's actually just that they've lost contact with reality! I'm not negative, I'm just telling them the truth! FAANTAAASTIC! (my butt)

There was one big thing that the kid arguing our side of the case missed. The Second Amendment is the only one that “shall not be infringed”. Others forbid the government from “prohibiting” things.

I think that the kid was too used to being on the defensive after soooo many years of sooo many unconstitutional laws being on the books. That may be why he failed to grow enough backbone to state that this amendment is written to ensure an even higher standard of scrutiny than any of the others. Not only shall the second not be prohibited, it shall not even be infringed upon.

Maybe he was right in toning things down to improve his chances of a favorable ruling, but I still find fault with that one aspect of his presentation in the oral arguments. Other than that one little criticism, I would really like to shake his hand & buy him a drink. I kind of wish he would run for office someplace so that I could vote for him. May be he would consider a VP slot under Ron Paul... That's a team I would like to see.

For the near 30 years that I've been a member, the NRA has sounded a constant drum beat that all firearms owners should vote Republican, especially for president. My NRA told me that the day would come when SCOTUS would make a major ruling that would either end the private possession of firearms, or reaffirm the right for years to come. That the decision would rest on the number of Liberal and Conservative Justices in each camp, and that we had better be in the majority when the fateful day came.

Thank you NRA.

I am extremely pleased with the Heller decision.

Funny…
My NRA tried to kill the Heller case. They tried to kill the Sylveria Vs. Lockyer case too. In that one, when it finally came to trial despite their best efforts, they wrote an “amicus” brief that could have been co-authored by the Brady bunch. It was shoddy legal work at best, but looked more like a knife in the back when I started reading the case references they sited. They quoted proposed bills from the 1700s that favored gun control. They offered them as references in testament to the mindset of the day, even though the bills they listed were defeated & not signed into law. It was touted as the view of the gun lobby. It was atrocious. My NRA asked me to vote for that presidential candidate that told the Iowa farmers “I’m not going to take your shotguns away from you”, the one that signed that funny little auto-weapons ban. My NRA has been nickel & dimeing us out of our gun rights with “compromises” for years. My NRA has been offering our rights up to the death of a thousand small cuts. You must belong to a different NRA than I did.

I’ve been sending my previously-NRA-money to places like Brass Roots & TSRA & some guys in VA that actually stand the line & don’t cave in on us for the last several years. Your NRA must be a better one that I don’t know about.

I'm pleased with scotus ruling, and I'm not trying to be negative about anything. At times I have great difficulty in understanding politics and law. So if anyone could answer me this question I sure would appreciate it!
Let's say within a number of years the scotus judges retire, pass away or what ever and the "new" judges that are appointed are by a party that is anti 2d amendment. Could a similar case be brought before the scotus and be ruled in in such a way that would reverse heller an also repeal the 2d amendment? Does the heller case set a binding precident?

Simple answer NO! While future courts may be influenced by Heller they are not bound by it and may say that the court made a mistake and completely reverse it. Not likely but legal, more likely would be to find a difference between their current(fictional) case and Heller and rule in such a way that Heller would rarely apply and their new ruling would be the law of the land. But why worry about such things. Instead vote for people that believe in literal interpretation of the Constitution and will appoint/confirm conservative judges to uphold the Constitution.

The Heller case is just the beginning. There will be many cases across the land, on several levels, that further define, extend or restrict the decision. Some or many of those may get to SOCTUS over the next 10-20 years. Eternal vigilance never relaxes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JIMinPHX

Funny…
My NRA tried to kill the Heller case. They tried to kill the Sylveria Vs. Lockyer case too. In that one, when it finally came to trial despite their best efforts, they wrote an “amicus” brief that could have been co-authored by the Brady bunch. It was shoddy legal work at best, but looked more like a knife in the back when I started reading the case references they sited. They quoted proposed bills from the 1700s that favored gun control. They offered them as references in testament to the mindset of the day, even though the bills they listed were defeated & not signed into law. It was touted as the view of the gun lobby. It was atrocious. My NRA asked me to vote for that presidential candidate that told the Iowa farmers “I’m not going to take your shotguns away from you”, the one that signed that funny little auto-weapons ban. My NRA has been nickel & dimeing us out of our gun rights with “compromises” for years. My NRA has been offering our rights up to the death of a thousand small cuts. You must belong to a different NRA than I did.

I’ve been sending my previously-NRA-money to places like Brass Roots & TSRA & some guys in VA that actually stand the line & don’t cave in on us for the last several years. Your NRA must be a better one that I don’t know about.

---

I'm pretty sure it's the same NRA, just viewed from polar extremes.

It's not surprising at all that the NRA tried to block the Heller case. It was a crap shoot going in. It's easy to say now that we've won this particular victory that it was a foregone conclusion. I didn't hear anyone say foregone conclusion during the run up to the decision however. In fact I recall a fair amount of hand wringing and anxiety. I'm very happy that the deciding vote came down on our side, but it could have as easily gone the other way.

Sylveria vs Lockyer? There are no legal eagles on this end. Perhaps you could distill this down into easily understood terms for me?

The president you refer to must be Bush 41. The appeaser. The Chamberlain of our times. It was no surprise he didn't get a second term. His stewardship of gun rights is a "is the glass half empty or half full?" question however. Yes, he did give us Sutor, but he also gave us Clarence Thomas. He got it half right, at least as far as SC Justices go. What would two Sutor's and no Clarence Thomas' have done for us in the Heller case? And what full auto ban? I'm quite sure that anyone who makes a lot more money than I do can still purchase full autos legally.

Please feel free to donate your money to the organizations that you feel do the best job and are the most deserving. I wouldn't have it any other way. I'll do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monadnock#5

Sylveria vs Lockyer? There are no legal eagles on this end. Perhaps you could distill this down into easily understood terms for me?

---

In a nutshell -

Bill Lockyer - Atorney General for California

Sylveria et al challenged the CA assault weapons ban on 2A grounds.

After trying to kill the case on the way up, the NRA delivered that one to the opposition by stating the "gun lobby" position as being against citizens having ugly black rifles… in not-so-many words.

This case should have been & almost became what Heller now is.

Judge Klienfeld’s dissent was a marvelous piece of literature that I will always treasure. Some other dissents were also quite good.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monadnock#5

And what full auto ban? I'm quite sure that anyone who makes a lot more money than I do can still purchase full autos legally.

---

The ban that he signed is the reason that you & I can't afford to buy anything class III. He dried up the supply.

I personally have no ambition to get anything full auto. I don't like to waste that much lead. I still don't like having the option placed out of my reach by our government though. It just seems un-American to me.

My basic point in that statement was that you can't trust stewardship of your rights to an individual just because he claims to be a Republican. Legislative creep has been getting used against us from both big parties for a long time. They just keep tag teaming us by one claiming that they are the lessor of two evils to win an election & then the other side waits for the current boob in power to do something even worse than they did so that they can reclaim the thrown for another turn reaching into our pockets & trampling our rights. The pendulum needs to be swung back in the other direction, not simply slowed. It has already gone too far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dust Collector

Could a similar case be brought before the scotus and be ruled in in such a way that would reverse heller an also repeal the 2d amendment? Does the heller case set a binding precident?

---

Lower courts are bound by this decision. Future SCOTUS decisions should look to it for guidance, but can actually lacerate it in any way that they see fit. It can be overturned or expanded upon by a future SCOTUS decision.

The SCOTUS can not repeal an amendment. They can just interpret it, although they can interpret it nearly to death. Actually changing the Constitution takes a very large act of Congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JIMinPHX

The ban that he signed is the reason that you & I can't afford to buy anything class III. He dried up the supply.

I personally have no ambition to get anything full auto. I don't like to waste that much lead. I still don't like having the option placed out of my reach by our government though. It just seems un-American to me.

My basic point in that statement was that you can't trust stewardship of your rights to an individual just because he claims to be a Republican. Legislative creep has been getting used against us from both big parties for a long time. They just keep tag teaming us by one claiming that they are the lessor of two evils to win an election & then the other side waits for the current boob in power to do something even worse than they did so that they can reclaim the thrown for another turn reaching into our pockets & trampling our rights. The pendulum needs to be swung back in the other direction, not simply slowed. It has already gone too far.

---

I had the opportunity to buy automatics back when they were "affordable". I had a tough enough time funding components for revolvers and bolt actions, so I didn't bite. Of course I wish I had, now. What a golden investment. I'm not selfish enough not to agree with you on the un-American aspect of the ban though. It was, and still is a bad law that improved no one's quality of life.

Maybe you remember NH's least favorite son. Good ol' Dick Swett. Tom Lantos' son in law. Dick was a Democratic member of the House. He swung both ways, a fiscal conservative and an ultra lib on social issues. It was he who promised NH that he would not, under any circumstances, vote for Slick Willie's omnibus crime bill, and then changed his mind the day of the vote. When he was booted out of office in the next cycle, Willie graciously sent Dick to the Netherlands as ambassador. Yeah, I know about slimy, rotten politicians.

No I don't like the system either. It's the only one we have though. Other options are as limited as they are either drastic or ineffective.

Now I'm getting depressed, and that's not what this thread is about. Mike deserves better than that, and so do we. The coach for the Detroit Pistons back in their glory years posted a question on the locker room wall, "CAN YOU ACCEPT PROSPERITY?". After repeatedly getting the filthy end of the stick, there are those who get the idea that's what they deserve, and grow to accept it. Or, like the Wayne's World duo, kow-tow and chant "WE'RE NOT WORTHY, WE'RE NOT WORTHY". We've got to start thinking differently. Our recent victory in the SC is cause for rejoicing. So let us be of good cheer, and then get back to work. I'd feel a lot better if we were all singing off the same sheet of music, but oh well. As long as we're all singing, we're doing OK.

Thanks Jim. That was to the point and much appreciated!