Based on the Justices' reactions to oral arguments at SCOTUS today

[Okla-homey]

the "right to keep and bear arms" will be ruled an individual right when the opinion is issued this summer. Not a collective right grounded in the state militia/national guard, ad nauseum, as anti-gun types argued.

Thus, a very encouraging day for us gun-nuts!

me likey.
:twinkies: :twinkies: :twinkies: :D :D :D :twinkies: :twinkies: :twinkies:

[BigRedJed]

Good call.

[TMcGee86]

Word!

[oilmud]

http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/780_machine_gun_shooting.gif


Good to hear, I always wanted an M16.

[shaun4411]

the "right to keep and bear arms" will be ruled an individual right when the opinion is issued this summer. Not a collective right grounded in the state militia/national guard, ad nauseum, as anti-gun types argued.

Thus, a very encouraging day for us gun-nuts!

me likey.
:twinkies: :twinkies: :twinkies: :D :D :D :twinkies: :twinkies: :twinkies:

its not even a right, its a privelage to people who dont have felonies. guns are fun. most people who own a lot of guns arent the type to knock off a 711. people who do that are the very same types who have full access to the black market anyways.

[olevetonahill]

its not even a right, its a privelage to people who dont have felonies. guns are fun. most people who own a lot of guns arent the type to knock off a 711. people who do that are the very same types who have full access to the black market anyways.

Its a Right doofus
see In that there amendment they be talking about It says
"The right" of the American people .
It dont say The privelidge can be Infringed .Mr 200 IQ
:rolleyes:

[shaun4411]

Its a Right doofus
see In that there amendment they be talking about It says
"The right" of the American people .
It dont say The privelidge can be Infringed .Mr 200 IQ
:rolleyes:

226 IQ

its a right, but not an 'absolute' right.

[Jerk]

It looks like it will go 5-4 in our favor, at minimum, with Kennedy casting the deciding vote. It may go 7-2, with souter and that little commie lady dissenting.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109724

Here is more from Lyle's take on the argument, available in full here (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-defining-a-right-of-self-defense/): In an argument that ran 23 minutes beyond the allotted time, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emerged as a strong defender of the right of domestic self-defense. At one key point, he suggested that the one Supreme Court precedent that at least hints that gun rights are tied to military not private needs — the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller — “may be deficient” in that respect. With Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Antonin Scalia leaving little doubt that they favor an individual rights interpretation of the Amendment (and with Justice Clarence Thomas, though silent on Tuesday, having intimated earlier that he may well be sympathetic to that view), Kennedy’s inclinations might make him — once more — the holder of the decisive vote

[shaun4411]

i wonder if justices have speechwriters draft their dissenting opinions.

[soonerscuba]

Good, although I still don't think that DC qualifies as a state.

[85Sooner]

a note should be made of who goes against this.

[BigRedJed]

226 IQ...
That's pretty damned amazing considering Einstein's was estimated to be between 160 and 180. I'm impressed.

Wouldn't the world be better off with you teaching quantum mechanics at Harvard, or something of the like, rather than frittering away your hours posting on a sports message board? This is a pretty irresponsible use of your time and intellect, IMO.

:confused:

[Vaevictis]

Talent don't mean **** if you don't do anything with it.

[olevetonahill]

That's pretty damned amazing considering Einstein's was estimated to be between 160 and 180. I'm impressed.

Wouldn't the world be better off with you teaching quantum mechanics at Harvard, or something of the like, rather than frittering away your hours posting on a sports message board? This is a pretty irresponsible use of your time and intellect, IMO.

:confused:

I dont think he would be very good at Liars poker .

[Frozen Sooner]

its not even a right, its a privelage to people who dont have felonies. guns are fun. most people who own a lot of guns arent the type to knock off a 711. people who do that are the very same types who have full access to the black market anyways.

Um, no. You have several rights which can be taken away upon conviction for a crime of felonious degree. That doesn't make them privileges, that means that society has a vested interest in curtailing the rights of those who egregiously transgress against it.

Based on the current makeup of the court, I don't think there's any way that they would opine that the second doesn't guarantee an individual right to bear arms. It takes some pretty good twisting around to say that the second doesn't guarantee such.

The big problem is what, if any, restrictions can we make-or do we need a constitutional amendment to do so? I can't see anything in the second as written to keep people from owning their own nuclear weapons. I can't see anything that keeps them from owning rocket launchers. In fact, the way the second is written (and from what I can divine about its intent) I would think that it would more guarantee the right to own rocket launchers than it would Saturday Night Specials.

[Jerk]

Mike - the key word is 'arms' as opposed to 'ordinance.' The 2nd doesn't say that individuals have the right to own 'ordinance,' which might be a cannon in the 1790's, or a howitzer, tank, or tactical nuke today.

The way I look at it is this: crew-served weapons don't apply to the second amendment freedom. However, if it shoots an unguided projectile and is portable by one man, then it is an 'arm.' Or 'small arm' to be exact.

The tricky part are the definitions.

I think they ought to make it simple: 'arms' are defined as anything which can be carried by one man, and can shoot an unguided, non-explosive projectile.

Explosives, cannons, guided missiles, etc, fall under the 'ordinance' category. (edit to add) and are community weapons.

[shaun4411]

That's pretty damned amazing considering Einstein's was estimated to be between 160 and 180. I'm impressed.

Wouldn't the world be better off with you teaching quantum mechanics at Harvard, or something of the like, rather than frittering away your hours posting on a sports message board? This is a pretty irresponsible use of your time and intellect, IMO.

:confused:

228 now. and i studied astrophysics, relativity, quantum and string theory during my undergraduate studies at the technische universitaet in berlin . ensuing, fell in love with the energy output measurement dubbed "erg", quit my physics studies, and finished up in oklahoma getting my mba after a short stint of helping stephen hawking getting a few papers published--most noteably the manuscript that turned into a book entitled A Brief History of Time. I married a woman whose last name is Oppenheimerberg, visited the Brandenberg gate, and rented a flat in hamburg. though it didnt contain erg, hamburg still maintained its natural beauty. it still even smells of ash from the great firebombing in the 40s.

I deserve a break.

[Frozen Sooner]

Mike - the key word is 'arms' as opposed to 'ordinance.' The 2nd doesn't say that individuals have the right to own 'ordinance,' which might be a cannon in the 1790's, or a howitzer, tank, or tactical nuke today.

The way I look at it is this: crew-served weapons don't apply to the second amendment freedom. However, if it shoots an unguided projectile and is portable by one man, then it is an 'arm.' Or 'small arm' to be exact.

The tricky part are the definitions.

I think they ought to make it simple: 'arms' are defined as anything which can be carried by one man, and can shoot an unguided, non-explosive projectile.

Explosives, cannons, guided missiles, etc, fall under the 'ordinance' category. (edit to add) and are community weapons.

I can buy that, but are there any writings of the framers that we could use to contextualize to make sure that they made the distinction between arms and ordinance that you do?

[soonerscuba]

228 now. and i studied astrophysics, relativity, quantum and string theory during my undergraduate studies at the technische universitaet in berlin . ensuing, fell in love with the energy output measurement dubbed "erg", quit my physics studies, and finished up in oklahoma getting my mba after a short stint of helping stephen hawking getting a few papers published--most noteably the manuscript that turned into a book entitled A Brief History of Time. I married a woman whose last name is Oppenheimerberg, visited the Brandenberg gate, and rented a flat in hamburg. though it didnt contain erg, hamburg still maintained its natural beauty. it still even smells of ash from the great firebombing in the 40s.

I deserve a break.

I'm calling it. Bull****.

[shaun4411]

I'm calling it. Bull****.

you forgot the *cough* part, making it coughbull****cough.

[Jerk]

I can buy that, but are there any writings of the framers that we could use to contextualize to make sure that they made the distinction between arms and ordinance that you do?

I don't know specific examples, but I do believe that they distinguished by 'arms' and 'ordinance' in their vocabulary.

Maybe Homey knows?

eta - it is just obvious to me that an M-16 rifle and an F-22 are both two extremely very different things, even though they are both 'weapons'

[Jerk]

oh, Mike:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Is there any parallel at the time that the amendment was adopted to the machine gun? In other words, I understand your point to be that, although that's useful in modern military service, it's not something civilians possess. Was there anything like that at the time of the adoption, or were the civilian arms exactly the same as the ones you'd use in the military?

I don't know what Heller's counsel said in reply...it's on page 61,,lol

[KC//CRIMSON]

When do we get to launch SAM's from our backyards?

[AlbqSooner]

228 now. and i studied astrophysics, relativity, quantum and string theory during my undergraduate studies at the technische universitaet in berlin . ensuing, fell in love with the energy output measurement dubbed "erg", quit my physics studies, and finished up in oklahoma getting my mba after a short stint of helping stephen hawking getting a few papers published--most noteably the manuscript that turned into a book entitled A Brief History of Time. I married a woman whose last name is Oppenheimerberg, visited the Brandenberg gate, and rented a flat in hamburg. though it didnt contain erg, hamburg still maintained its natural beauty. it still even smells of ash from the great firebombing in the 40s.

I deserve a break.

You are really a "Black" guy who used to have a carpet cleaning service in Dallas, aren't you.

[Frozen Sooner]

I don't know specific examples, but I do believe that they distinguished by 'arms' and 'ordinance' in their vocabulary.

Maybe Homey knows?

eta - it is just obvious to me that an M-16 rifle and an F-22 are both two extremely very different things, even though they are both 'weapons'

Oh, I agree that they're obviously two different things-but stare decisis is made by people taking the letter of the law and stretching it to fit something the law doesn't anticipate. That's why I'm just more comfortable with the whole mess if we had some context that showed that the framers differentiated between a musket and a cannon. Also confusing the issue is language drift: the framers used an English that was fairly different than what we use today. Case in point: the pursuit of happiness can be shown through contextual cues to mean something different than what most people today think it "obviously" means. The key is that "pursuit" was commonly meant as "occupation" in the 18th century-which is a fairly uncommon usage today. Digression there, sorry.

Anyhow, sure, I can see how the framers would have meant "you get to own everything that you can man and service by yourself, so no, Skippy the Frontiersman, you don't get to go out and buy a galleon."

[Frozen Sooner]

When do we get to launch SAM's from our backyards?

Just as soon as you build a catapult for him. Tie him up good, though-when he's flailing around in the air, he becomes much less aerodynamic.

[KC//CRIMSON]

Just as soon as you build a catapult for him. Tie him up good, though-when he's flailing around in the air, he becomes much less aerodynamic.

Then you can try and hit him with your SAMS. Got it.;)

[Jerk]

When do we get to launch SAM's from our backyards?

Crew-served weapon: ordinance.

Nope...can't have it.

[shaun4411]

When do we get to launch SAM's from our backyards?

i prefer my very own SLAMER, or JDAM. but, id need a nice plane for the JDAM, and a ship or sleek submarine for the SLAMER

[Jerk]

Anyhow, sure, I can see how the framers would have meant "you get to own everything that you can man and service by yourself, so no, Skippy the Frontiersman, you don't get to go out and buy a galleon."

Right. I agree with that. And the reason I throw in the part about 'unguided non-explosive projectiles' is because that would describe the concept of small arms back then, namely, the musket, which fires a lead ball. Today, the 'small arm' still fires a lead round that is non-explosive and unguided, although the biggest advancement in technology occurred since then with the cartridge round, which made loading, shooting, and reloading, much faster. So what we have today that can be bought at the sporting goods store is a direct ancestor of the musket. Yeah, it's a little more modern, but so is the internet in comparison with the printing press.

[shaun4411]

Crew-served weapon: ordinance.

Nope...can't have it.

define crew? more than 2 people? more than 1? one person can launch an rpg, mortar shells etc.. perhaps it is defined by the measureable amount of damage or blast radius the weapon projects.

[Jerk]

define crew? more than 2 people? more than 1? one person can launch an rpg, mortar shells etc.. perhaps it is defined by the measureable amount of damage or blast radius the weapon projects.

I throw in explosive projectiles in the category of destructive devices, many of which can be purchased today with a permit. Muskets did not shoot a projectile which exploded, therefore an RPG is in a different class than a simple rifle. BTW- these are my definitions. What I hope is that the SCOTUS will use a good method to determine the difference between a protected 'small arm' and something like a tactical nuke.

It wouldn't be wise to say that 'all weapons should be legal to own, including ICBM's' just as it wouldn't be wise to say there is no difference between an aircraft carrier and a pistol, therefore, ALL should be banned. There is a clear distinction between a weapon that one can use to defend himself in a home invasion, car jacking, or even a riot, and one that is used to wipe out an entire city. The military's mission is to kill people and break things. The 'law-abiding' American is armed to protect himself. They should start there.

[Jerk]

Oh, and as to the question about crew served weapons. Yeah, if you need two people to operate it, then it would fall into that category. This could be something that the people kept in the armory back in the 1790's. If you need a trailer hitch and a truck to move it, then, again, it would fall in the category of something other than a small arm.

[Okla-homey]

Oh, and as to the question about crew served weapons. Yeah, if you need two people to operate it, then it would fall into that category. This could be something that the people kept in the armory back in the 1790's. If you need a trailer hitch and a truck to move it, then, again, it would fall in the category of something other than a small arm.

and yet, one can still get a federal license to own and use full-autos and crew served weapons.

Heck, one of my bosses owns a .50 BMG. :D

Anyhoo, I agree the 2d should be interpreted as referring to an individual right to keep and bear small arms.

Just for giggles, take a look at the Articles of Confederation sometime. It goes into much more detail on the matter specifying states' obligation to maintain armories and stores of ammunition for the collective use of the militia.


Article IV
[...]but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces [that's artillery folks] and tents, and a proper quantity of arms [that's musketry and pistols folks], ammunition and camp equipage.

Presumably, if the framers of the Constitution had intended to make gun ownership a collective right for the militia, they could have parroted the Articles. Particularly since many of the same d00ds who wrote the above were alive and kicking and participated in the drafting of the Bill of Rights a little over ten years later. But they didn't. Contrast,


The Second Amendment to the Constitution:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, I admit I'm originally from Ardmore and all, but even I can see the difference.

[Mixer!]

I deserve a break.

http://img.search.com/8/8c/300px-Mcdonalds_golden_arches_sign.jpg

[Ike]

So where, in the whole ordinance/arms question does the so-called briefcase-nuke fall?


I'm sure you will all call it ordinance, I'm just curious for the reasoning.