DC Gun Ban Ruling Broken Down in Plain English

Post anything and everything related to guns here...
pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

DC Gun Ban Ruling Broken Down in Plain English

Post#1 » Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:57 pm

Its time to put a little We The People FEAR back into our governmental prostiticians. These fuckers think they are above the law, and above being responsive to us. WE ARE THE MASTERS, They are the servants. In other words, its time the parent - WTP gave the child - government, a swift kick in the ass, and pronto.
pk



DC Gun Ban Ruling Broken Down in Plain English.
Body: > http://www. scotusblog. com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290. pdf
> Held:
> 1.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


> Pp. 2–53.



My, my.

I have most carefully read the 2nd and nowhere in it do I find
the word 'firearm' or 'gun'. What I find is the word 'arms'.

That is
an all-inclusive term. It means anything from a rock in hand to.....
whatever. Any weapon. ANY weapon. ALL weapons.

I will point out that
the redcoats of General Gage in Boston were seeking CREW SERVED
WEAPONS-- cannon-- when they made their foray to Concord on April 19,
1775.



> (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
> does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
> clause.

The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it
> connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.



...being necessary to the security of a free state-- and what
interferes with a 'free state'? A meddlesome government...

Kindly notice that for all the lawyer talk, all the barnyard byproduct
legalese, the wording used in the 2nd is all positive and 'mandatory'
and inclusive for the citizenry, and precisely the opposite for
government.

Government is utterly forbidden any ability to meddle,
while the citizenry is utterly empowered and made free of government
interference.



NECESSARY to the security of a free state....

... the RIGHT of the people--.

inherent personal prerogative immune to
government meddling

...to keep and bear ARMS-- no restriction; any and all weaponry

SHALL NOT be infringed-- plain, positive, inclusive.

Government, thou shalt not

> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation
> of the operative clause.

The "militia" comprised all males physically
> capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

The Antifederal-
> ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
> order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing
> army or a select militia to rule.

The response was to deny Congress
> power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
> arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.


> Pp. 22–28.



I suppose they hope that no one notices that this completely
invalidates most of the other 'findings' of the 'opinion'.

That is,
(b) above points out that GOVERNMENT is the likely enemy and likely
target of any true employment of the purpose, the 'prefatory clause',
of the Amendment.

Now, like a cat having defecated on linoleum, the
'honorable justices' set out to cover that 'inconvenient fact'.



> (c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-
> bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
> followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.


> (d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious
> interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
> that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.


> Pp. 30–32.



'Dubious interpretative worth'? They mean, the part where the Founders
clearly meant for the citizens to be armed and capable of overthrowing
the government when necessary?

> (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
> and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
> late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32–47.



Once upon a time, in the lifetime of my father and grandfather, if you
wanted a weapon-- ANY weapon, ALL weapons, you simply went and bought
it.

Artillery, explosives, auto weapons, short barreled anything, it
mattered not.

If you wanted it and had the cash (gold and silver
coin), you found a willing seller and bought it.

And who gives a bit
of care to what 'scholars, courts, and legislators' think about
something which is declared out of bounds to any restriction? The 2nd,
as written, precludes any and all effort to restrict weaponry or the
citizens' access to weaponry of their choice.



> (f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpre-
> tation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S.

542, 553, nor
> Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S.

252, 264–265, refutes the individual-
> rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S.

174, does not
> limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
> limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
> the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.



Here comes the barnyard byproduct.

Here is the effort to remove and
hide the actual purpose of the 2nd-- that is, to hold a weapon at the
head of government.

Here is the effort to 'allow' the criminals of
government to 'define' what 'type' of weapon the criminals are going
to 'allow'.

And further, to declare 'for lawful purposes'-- that is,
what government SAYS is 'lawful'... and shooting politicians and their
'enforcers' for attempting to infringe on the 'security' of our 'free
state' will certainly not be considered a 'lawful purpose'.

And
certainly not after having 70-odd years to freely restrict citizens'
access and employment of arms of the CITIZENS' choice.



I would ask-- what 'lawful purpose' did the armed citizenry of
Lexington and Concord Massachusetts and their environs pursue? Please
note that the 'lawful government' which would have been providing the
definition of 'lawful purpose' was the object of the exercise-- that
is, the redcoat enforcers of King George III.



> 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.


> It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
> cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
> or state analogues.

The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast
> doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
> felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-
> arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
> laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
> arms.

Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
> "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition
> of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


> Pp. 54–56.



So now they bless and allow 70-odd years of meddling to stand.

Piss on
the Court.

Whether or not the 'average gun owner' can read their
jumbled up and contradictory statements with comprehension, _I_ can.


And I see this as an unqualified victory for the tyrant.

Government
infringement upon our RIGHT is clearly blessed by this 'honorable
court'.



> 3.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
> self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

The District's total ban
> on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
> entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
> lawful purpose of self-defense.

Under any of the standards of scru-
> tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
> prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
> of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
> muster.



Do please note that the discussion has wheeled about and now the TRUE
purpose of the 2nd, to guarantee the citizenry the ability to resist
tyranny, is swept under the judicial floor covering of barnyard
byproduct.

'(L)awful defense of self, family, and property'
conveniently conceals the fact that the citizens' weaponry is to
RESIST GOVERNMENT TYRANNY.



> Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the

'lawful firearm'? How does 'right to keep and bear arms' get morphed
into the concept of 'lawful firearm'? The intended target of the
weapons is now given the ability to DEFINE what is a 'lawful weapon'?

They can line up and kiss my unreconstructed rebel ass.



> home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
> for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and

'Core purpose of self defense'? Only when viewed in the larger sense
of 'self protection against GOVERNMENT'.



> is hence unconstitutional.

Because Heller conceded at oral argument
> that the D. C.

licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi-
> trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
> his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.



Oh, how sweet for Unca Sham. They hereby explicitly bless licensing.


And somehow 'shall not be infringed' is made moot.

In many, many other
decisions, it is explicitly stated that a right cannot be made subject
to taxation nor licensing IN ANY FORM.



Nice try, black robed whores.

Go try to peddle your barnyard byproduct
to someone who cannot see through your legal legerdemain.



> Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
> rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
> must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.


> 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.



So THIS is a 'victory' for the RIGHT to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

Sorry, folks, I can read plain English, and I know what was just done
to us.

And that is, precisely what I have been predicting would
happen, all along.



William Michael Kemp
Liberty, Mississippi

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests