US Supreme Court may deny "right to keep and bear arms"

I don't see this supreme court taking guns away. They may want to bring this case up as a way of clarifying the second amendment

 

I believe you're selling and buying the right to it.

 

Techevangelist is right. Eminent domain is one of the most egregious intrusions on the right to private property, and by definition shows that land is not truly owned, only licensed for purchase and sale.

 

True, but often times the government pays handsomely for land in the public domain.

 

Eminent domain is being abused to sieze private property so local government can resell it at a profit.

There's plenty of cases that private people had their land siezed by local towns when in fact the property was up for sale. The local town then resold the property at the higher price for a profit or gave it to their cronies.

So what I'm saying is this. You put the property up for sale for a million for development and the local government takes your property and gves you $100,000. Then they sell it for 1 million. What's up with that?

I think they will need to start disarming people as some people may decide to fight back.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml

 

Well, not in my experience. I legal assisted for a Chicago eminent domain firm, one of the biggest (or I should say, most connected.. I saw far too many old folks getting reamed by the city - I'm not kidding - forced to sell their home for a helluva lot lower than what the market would normally bear. It is an absolute lose for the property owner, at least from all I saw.

 

Update:
The U.S. Supreme Court held off Tuesday on deciding whether to take up a high-profile case on killing a Washington, D.C., ban on handguns, leaving observers guessing what the court would do next.

Four justices must vote to grant an appeal that would allow the high court to hear the case. The justice don't always reach a decision the first time they consider taking a case. The next time the court could announce its decision about hearing the case is Nov. 26.

In another twist to this case, both sides cite as precedent in their favor the 1939 Miller decision. That court could have issued a ruling that would have offered clarity on the reach of the Second Amendment. Instead its opinion was based on a technical matter that failed to resolve the standing question: Do the rights endowed in the Second Amendment extend to all people?

Similar to Miller, this case offers the court under Chief Justice John Roberts some room to issue an opinion on narrow technical grounds. Such a decision likely would disappoint all sides for failing to provide a definitive answer to a question that's been unresolved since 1791. But should the court issue a decisive ruling, it has the potential to enthrall and enrage the passions of those engaged on this controversial issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311276,00.html

The Supreme Court has heard only five cases directly related to the Second Amendment.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

The Court stated in 1980 that

 

Another example of a free country coming to an end. The Government is thinking about not following its own laws, but that has become routine.

 

Crime rates are so high because people are being taught that human life doesn't matter, that there is no purpose to life, that there is no God, and then they see these same crimes on television and in video games. Crime rates weren't always this high. Back in the 1800's almost everyone had a gun but there wasn't very many gun-related crimes.

The problem is that criminals do not obey the law. If the government bans guns it will only affect the law-abiding citizen.
Criminals will still be able to buy guns on the black market.
People can use knives and other weapons as well. Should the government ban them as well. Pretty soon we wouldn't be to have anything because crimes can be committed with almost anything.

 

A gun can also be easily made in your own home if you know what you're doing Banning them would simply open a new black market much more so than illegal gun sales are now. As the criminals would be not only selling them to criminals, but also otherwise law obiding people and manufacturing them.

Talk about a nightmare.

 

Yet I still have...uh...a BB gun

 

There are people who still use guns to obtain food. Some of those same people live in rural communities far from any police and actually NEED a gun to protect themselves. I happen to know a few people who own steel lathes anyway. You can make just about anything on one of those from auto parts to ak's if you have the specs and know how to use it. I think the SC would be insane to actually outlaw guns but I appreciate the thread anyway

 

It's time people realized what the heck is going on.

It's anti-American. It's anti-freedom, it's anti-Liberty. It's not what America is about. A nanny state with statist neo-cons in both parties eroding the rights of the individual. Particularly the right to own property.

Government can't own anything. All of their income comes from the citizenry. When they buy someone's land through coercion with the collective fund, that's socialism. A forced redistribution of wealth.

 

I'd like to see the US Government let veterans keep their weapons after they finish their military service. So anyone that gets an honorable discharge keeps their M-16 and any veterans that want one can just go down to the VA and pick theirs up.

This way the militia clause in the 2nd admendment would be fulfilled and it would give people a nice benefit in joining the military

They wouldn't take away your guns but rather erode your rights. In 1991 NJ passes an "assault rifle" ban that prohibited ownership of the rifles. They quickly realized if they started knocking down doors in the middle of the night to confiscate the weapons people would go nuts.

So what did they do? Simply passed a law that any weapon not registered in 1991 even if you bought it legally is now a crime. Weapons can not change ownership or be bought or sold.

Basically no one under the age of 35 now has a legal assualt rifle. Another 30 years and only senoir citizens will have them.

 

Nobody's taking away my right to bear arms. I mean, can you imagine how ridiculous this would look without arms?

 

I just had the same discussion with the guy I workout with yesterday. I told him point blank I thought he 'he's an X marine' and others who serve should be allowed to keep their weapons.

I however don't think it would 'fulfill' the militia clause, I would still be against the government clamping down on non military or x military gun ownership.

 

All citizens should be able purchase weapons for hunting and defense and every veteran with an honorable discharge should keep their M16. Definetely would have cut down crime in the inner cities.

 

Off-topic, completely, and apologies in advance - but does anyone know if the CMP program and the purchase of WWII era M1 garands is still available, in practice?

 

Last I heard of it 'a few years back' it was, not sure currently. Good question though!

 

The CMP is out of M1 Garands, M1917 Endfields, and are running low on the M1903 and 03-A3 rifles. They do have some M1 Carbines, but these won't last too long.

http://www.tk560.com/m1garand.htm

I've never fired a Garand but I think it's a better weapon than a semi AK-47.

It's kind of funny that at the same time the Government is on your back they are selling some nice weapons through the Civilian Marksmanship Program.(CMP)