This strongly suggest that a new AWB, which would outlaw an AR-15, would probably be ruled unconstitutional. As I read it. Being that the AR-15 is not a sophisticated arm in the sense of a machine gun, but is a weapon of military use, the closest possible to the sophisticated M-16.
Miller, as I’ve often said, supports this. (I’d call a M-16 challenge questionable and not a sure win.)
Opinions?
Yeah, to me that is a horrible piece of logic. Since M-16s aren’t very common they can be banned. But they aren’t very common because they are banned.
It seems like the very idea that he was against yesterday in the child rape case. Kennedy argued that the DP for child rape wasn’t very common. Scalia (by signing on to Alito’s opinion) stated that the reason more states hadn’t passed child rape DP statutes was because of uncertainly of what would happen in SCOTUS. He wants it both ways.
On one hand I am thrilled that finally, FINALLY, the high court has stated what should have been obvious all along: That Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms.
On the other hand, I’m dismayed that they have put this right on the lowest possible pedestal. Imagine a free speech right that permitted only certain types of political speech that required permits and background checks first. That is the equivalent of what happened here with the 2nd. They needed/need to do more…
Oh and I’m going to take this opportunity to say - we’ve won the battle, but we have NOT won the war. Celebrate this victory, yes, but keep one thing in mind: if Obama becomes president, HE will be able to appoint new Supreme Court justices in the event that one or more of them step down. And make no mistake, Obama will appoint someone who’s a vicious anti just like he is. Obama thinks that my Savage .22 plinker should be banned because it’s semi-automatic. In my mind, that’s like someone wanting to ban hockey, or ban swimming. Obama is an absolute gun-control fascist - don’t ever, ever forget it. He sought statewide handgun and semi-auto bans. He laid on the usual claptrap about “supporting the rights of hunters and target shooters” while saying not a peep about the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment - the right to SELF DEFENSE.
Obama gets elected and we can be sure that he will nominate his fellow bumbling anti-gun clowns.
For the first time in my life, today I finally understand how important the presidential appointments to the Supreme Court are.
I WAS going to just not vote at all, because I didn’t like either McCain or Obama enough to want to support them. Well, that’s changed now. McCain is getting my vote, and I don’t care if he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. I can’t on principle vote for someone who would have our right to bear arms brutally infringed on.
Barack Obama’s statement about Heller:
Nothing about a handgun or semi-auto ban there. Do you have a cite for your belief that he wants a nation-wide ban on these types of guns?
You know, as someone on the winning side I would have thought that you would have been content with that. Why are you still going down the road of insults?
Anyway, it doesn’t make any difference who Obama nominates to the bench. The Court will be extremely reluctant to vacate this ruling, even if they dearly want to, because for them to vacillate on an issue several times over just a few years will be severely damaging to their credibility. The credibility of their decisions is paramount in having them obeyed and enforced. They can’t change their minds every time the wind shifts.
This ruling is here to stay. The only thing you should wonder about is what will happen from here on out.
This statement troubles me: “As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.”
Either you have individual rights to firearm ownership or not, doesn’t matter where you live.
I’m not Towers, but he might be wary of Obama’s previous stance:
He certainly favored a statewide ban on them. Said so on a questionnaire in 1996. He tried to deny filling the form out until it was pointed out that his handwriting was all over the thing, which the Clinton campaign at the time pounced upon like a tiger.
He is also on record as believing that the DC gun ban was constitutional - so this latest statement from him is just the latest diversion from his earlier positions. His documented gun views can’t help him, he knows it, and he has been doing his level best to muddy the issue.
Well, now he knows better, doesn’t he? Obama approved of a gas tax holiday in Illinois, which failed miserably, so now he doesn’t support it. I’d be surprised if he continued to insist that the ban is constitutional now that the SC has laid down the precedent.
And control-z, from what I understand the SC decision doesn’t prohibit regulation, only outright ban, and I think it’s reasonable that tighter regulation might be more necessary in a dense urban setting than in a less populated area.
Nope, sorry. He doesn’t get off that easily.
The Supreme Court said what they said, but Barack Obama has a record in this area that is in no way invalidated by that opinion - especially since as president he has considerable say in federal firearms policy. His record and opinions and overall point of view on the subject are just as relevant as before.
So if gun owners still have a problem with the guy, it is a problem he earned.
Chicago effectively banned handguns as of 1982, as seen here: Gun Control “All residents who purchased and registered their handguns prior to January 1982 were allowed to keep their weapons. Chicago became the first major city to enact a handgun freeze in United States history.”
As expected, the mayor of Chicago isn’t at all happy about the Supreme Court decision: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1026348,daleygun062608.article
Correct. Here is what Scalia said to that:
Maybe it’s reasonable. (At least, I think that a reasonable debate can be held…)
But Obama’s statement could still get “spun” anyway.
When I read it, my first (mental) rebuttal was: “So, you have a right to defend yourself against the worst criminals in Cheyenne, but not in Chicago?” 
I can’t argue with that. But I do think responses like Argent Towers’s go beyond that. Obama has precedent working against him now, and he’s shown that he’s not one to steamroll a liberal agenda, but rather seek compromises. I can’t see that he’d try to kick the Second Amendment out from under people now.
Not to mention it’s clearly a losing issue anyway. Someone pushing hard for absurd gun control these days is going to get their ass kicked politically.
Getting off-topic here, but I believe the majority of Americans didn’t give a shit about the whole Hilary/Obama thing because they wouldn’t vote for either of them. I think mom & pop America will stay silent, and in November will go vote for McCain.
True, any more than Comstockoids have stopped because the courts have determined that you can’t just ban porn (but can regulate its publication and distribution to a certain extent).
Bill Clinton said much the same when he was President.
And then we got the Assault Weapons Ban.
Even though the BATF stood up before Congress and told them that the class of weapon they were banning was used in less than 2% of violent firearm crime.
The federal AWB lapsed, but several states bravely carry on the ban, even with scant evidence of their posing any significant criminal threat.
When it comes to politicians, talk is cheap.
Action speaks much louder than words.
Obama can say whatever he wants; historically, he hasn’t met a gun control measure he didn’t like.
If elected President, when Congress shoves a new round of gun control or even gun bans across his desk, I’ll bet dollars to donuts he signs it without a second thought.
Well, according to the current law, it kind of does matter where you live. The rights in the 2nd Amendment have never been held to be incorporated, and there is nothing in this opinion that incorporates them as far as I can see. Indeed, it would be hard for the Court to do that given that it ws a case about DC.
So you are going to need more litigation if you want to assert that Chicagoans, for example, are having their rights restricted in an unconstitutional manner by the current gun control policies of that city.
So the answer is no, you do not have a cite.
:dubious: Are you throwing down a gauntlet, sir?