Supreme Court Ruling

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Shaun, nothing wrong with your opinion, that's your choice. As a law abiding citizen who does like to hunt and shoot it's important to me to have a choice too. This decision was important for us because it allows us to have a choice. I understand that with gun ownership comes responsibility and I feel those who cannot assume the responsibility should lose the choice. No different than safely operating a car or any number of other things in society.
 
I'm going to have to read the Court's decision in more depth, it's really quite fascinating. The discussion within the Court doesn't appear to revolve around the merits of gun ownership, but rather on how strictly the Constitution is to be interpreted. In other words, does the preamble to the 2nd amendment - A well regulated militia - limit the right of the people to keep and bear arms to only organized military activities, or were the Framers merely citing an example for which weapons could be owned.
 
A 5 to 4 decision does not indicate to me that their decision is all that compelling or correct. I think that "interpretation" of the Constitution is often not so much interpreting the actual words used in the Constituion, but rather an attempt to navigate between various possible interpretaions while influenced by how willing your are to let criminals have easier access to guns to shoot innocent people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Todd C, Hkeiner,



A part of the Supreme Court's job of upholding the Constitution is to interpret its meaning given an ever-changing modern-day lens. Many think that an interpretative view of the Constutition isn't needed, and that it should instead be taken literally, but that's akin to those who think the same of the Bible. I submit that no tome of any size written at some earlier point of time can have substantial, literal, unchanging meaning throughout history.



Here is what Wikipedia says about the very debate of the interpretation:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. Historically, there has been disagreement among scholars as to the exact meaning of the amendment: whether the right belongs to individuals, to organized militia or to the states, what types of arms are protected, and exactly what state and/or federal actions are proscribed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A part of the Supreme Court's job of upholding the Constitution is to interpret its meaning given an ever-changing modern-day lens.
Click to expand...



That is the point I was making. The Supreme Court is not interpreting the written Constituion, but rather applying their own beliefs on what this country's current "ever-changing modern-day lens" is or should be. Since they are not elected nor do they act based upon public opinion polls, I question that they are in a position to make such decisions based upon their own view of this "lens." The fact that it was a 5 to 4 decision makes it appear that the "lens" has various different possible colors. I say let the Congress make the laws and the Supreme Court interpret the written constituion. I think that a 5 to 4 decision is too close and should not overturn elected officials' laws that try to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals and to protect the innocent public.



 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have mixed emotions about the ruling. I own quite a few guns and have no desire to give them up but I also understand the problem many large cities are having. I would be satisfied if the courts would just give an automatic death penalty to anyone that uses a gun to commit a crime. (Any crime). Unfortuntely the liberal ACLU would never let that happen.
 
Hkeiner, if that is your point, and you don't think the interpretative upholding of the Constitution is the job of the SCOTUS, then I submit that a literal interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment makes that particular ammendment rather useless at this day and age.



Hkeiner you also said:
I say let the Congress make the laws and the Supreme Court interpret the written constituion
Click to expand...



If that's the case, then Congress should probably rewrite or strike down the 2nd ammendment.



Personally, I have no issue with an interpretative view of the ammendments. What I do have issue with are many of the bastardized interpretations.



TJR
 
Much of the discussion on this case was interpreting what the framers of the constitution meant. Using the terms and context of the day, not so much applying today's thoughts and meanings.



For a look at the briefs supporting this case and to download the transcript go to the link.
 
That was precisely my point as well. It seems to me that Stevens, in his dissent, is taking a very literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment; saying that the Framers were limiting possession of arms to the people as a collective, not as individuals, and only in the context of the States maintaining an organized militia.



Scalia, on the other hand, says that the right to bear arms is an individual right, and that the regulated militia provides context, but not limitation.



 
If that's the case, then Congress should probably rewrite or strike down the 2nd ammendment.......What I do have issue with are many of the bastardized interpretations.
Click to expand...



I agree. If a literal interpretation of the Constitution does not reflect what Congress (and thus the people) currently want's it to reflect, it should be rewritten to more accuratly reflect what it does want it to reflect. A bastardized interpretation by the Supreme Court is probably only recognized as "bastardized" if it is contrary to ones own view of what "lens" should be applied to an interpretation.







 
Ownership of firearms is a choice, if you don't like firearms that is fine. I would defend your right of choice. That being said, don't try to push your choice on others. The right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does stop once it interferes with another's rights. That is the basic premise of the constitution.



Y'all have a good one



Bob
 
The Great Men who Drafted that fine Document knew exactly what they were saying and we the people know exactly what they meant. We don't need anyone to interpret it. The only reason any one in our government would have to re-interpret it is because they know the people are getting really fed up with the bullshit they keep pulling on us. One of these days it's all going to blow up in their face and they don't want you to be able to do anything to help it along.



"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of Patriots and TYRANTS."

Thomas Jefferson



This is what they fear.

One of these days the American People will stop being their own worst enemy and start standing together, I HOPE.. I may not be here to see it but I believe it will happen.



Hope you agree with my Rant.
 
hkeiner, let me give you one of my examples of "bastardization."



"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."



When that rather easy to understand verbiage (that can be taken very literally mind you) is bastardized to mean that a county courthouse having a plaque listing the 10 Commandments is somehow a violation of the Constitution....that just might be a bastardization.



TJR
 
drpertz, if the 2nd ammendment is to be taken literally, then it has no teeth for use by the NRA, and little teeth for individual gun owner's rights. So, be careful what you wish for.



TJR
 
I am a gun owner.

I also have a "carry permit", due to my profession.

I never want to lose that right nor do I want my great, great grandchildren to lose it.

5-4 is TOO close, IMO. Next time, it might be 4-5. All hell will break loose.
 
Maybe its because I, like Ryan, am from the country to the north but I dont think that I will ever own a gun unless my land, my country, and my family is at stake.
Click to expand...



Here is some food for thought. If tomorrow your family is in danger, how will you protect them with a gun if you do not own a gun.



I am not saying you should own a gun, that should be your decision. What I am saying is that you never know when you may need to protect your family, your land, or anything else. If we knew when we needed to protect our property or self, there would be no crime.



You would stop it from happening in the first place.





Tom
 

Latest posts

Top