Washington DC Gun Ban Shot Down [Archive] - Spearboard.com - The World's Largest Spearfishing Diving Boating Social Media Forum

Bill McIntyre

03-09-2007, 04:16 PM

Here is the NYT translation of the decision.

March 9, 2007
Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment

By ADAM LIPTAK
A federal appeals court in Washington today struck down on Second Amendment grounds a gun control law in the District of Columbia that bars residents from keeping handguns in their homes.

The court relied on a constitutional interpretation that has been rejected by nine federal appeals courts around the nation. The decision was the first from a federal appeals court to hold a gun-control law unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to a collective right of state militias.

Linda Singer, the district’s acting attorney general, said the decision was “a huge setback.”

“We’ve been making progress on bringing down crime and gun violence, and this sends us in a different direction,” Ms. Singer said.

Lawyers on both sides of the case said the decision had created a conflict among the federal courts of appeals on a significant constitutional issue, making review by the Supreme Court likely.

The case was brought by Dick Heller, a police officer in the district who was permitted to carry a gun on duty and wanted to keep one at home. His application was denied.

He challenged provisions of the district’s law that barred the registration of handguns, that prohibited carrying handguns without a license even from one room of a private home to another, and that required lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.

In a 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the court, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, ruled those provisions unconstitutional. The Second Amendment says, “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.”

The basic question in the case was whether the first clause limits the second one.

Most federal appeals courts have said that the amendment, read as a whole, protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias — in modern terms, the National Guard. But in yesterday’s decision, the majority focused on the second clause, saying that the amendment broadly protects the rights of individuals to own guns — an approach that has been embraced by the Justice Department and by some constitutional scholars.

SeaAggie

03-09-2007, 04:59 PM

The case was brought by Dick Heller, a police officer in the district who was permitted to carry a gun on duty and wanted to keep one at home. His application was denied.

If I lived in DC I would be keeping more than just a hand gun in my home. Can you say assault weapon?....
:thumps:

bgbill

03-09-2007, 05:02 PM

Does Washington DC restrict any of the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Bill McIntyre

03-09-2007, 05:35 PM

Does Washington DC restrict any of the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Bret- as much as you hate to admit to the possibility, the constitution does require interpretation. And as the article says, nine other federal appeals courts have interpreted the second amendment as applying collectively to state militias rather than individuals.

The Supreme Court may well go with the DC court rather than the nine others, but I think the judges on those other courts really did do there best to try to interpret the intent of the amendment, even if their interpretation doesn't square with your own.

Its too bad, but I think the working really is rather ambiguous.

bgbill

03-09-2007, 05:39 PM

Bret- as much as you hate to admit to the possibility, the constitution does require interpretation. And as the article says, nine other federal appeals courts have interpreted the second amendment as applying collectively to state militias rather than individuals.

The Supreme Court may well go with the DC court rather than the nine others, but I think the judges on those other courts really did do there best to try to interpret the intent of the amendment, even if their interpretation doesn't square with your own.

Its too bad, but I think the working really is rather ambiguous.

Why is it that all the other amendments are an individual right and only the second amendment is a collective right?

Who is the state malitia?

Bill McIntyre

03-09-2007, 05:42 PM

Why is it that all the other amendments are an individual right and only the second amendment is a collective right?

Maybe because they wrote it that way? I don't know. Ask those nine other courts why they think so.

Who is the state malitia?

The National Guard.

Wayward Son

03-09-2007, 05:43 PM

The circuit court that covers LA issued a similar ruling a few years ago. That's the 2nd circuit, I think. Anywhoozle, they found that the 2nd is an individual right & provided massive doses of documentation to support the decision.

It's really not that hard to do, unless you don't want to look at & believe history. Hell, at least as far back as the Dread Scott decision the USSC made reference to the 2nd being an individual right, saying that Scott could not be a person, because if he was legally a person he would have access to all the rights thereof, & specifically stated that included the right to keep & bear arms. Anything other than an individual right makes utterly no sense at all. Why would the 2nd be a collective right when the rest of the 1st 10 are not?

If it wasn't an individual right, how did everyone get armed? Where did all these guns come from to land in private citizens hands?

The Miller decision is usually held up by the antis as somehow "proof" that it's a collective right, but that decision said no such thing. It simply asked the question "does a sawed off shotgun provide suitable use for militia purposes?" and there was no one on Millers side to argue that it clearly did, as our soldiers had in fact been using them. The decision wasn't a good one for either side, but my point is that it was far from one saying that the 2nd is a collective right. They had no qualms about a private citizen possessing the gun, so long as they deemed it to be a protected weapon under the 2nd. That does not sound like they were making any sort of a "collective right" argument at all.

bgbill

03-09-2007, 05:45 PM

Who is the state militia?

The National Guard.

I figured you would say that :thumps: 2 easy questions for you.

1. When was the Constitution ratified?

2. When was the National Guard established?

jackpine savage

03-09-2007, 05:48 PM

I had always read it to mean both, that the framers were allowing the states to maintain militias seperate from teh federal military while also allowing individuals to maintain private ownership of guns. I also read it to allow the government to regulate ownership of firearms.

I am not a constitutional lawyer but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night.

Bill McIntyre

03-09-2007, 05:49 PM

Wayward Son

03-09-2007, 05:53 PM

The term 'militia' has a specific, legal definition. That definition clearly excludes the Army, Navy, National Guard & other uniformed forces.

Anyone who is interested in the actual history of the 2nd in the USSC might find this book worth while:

http://www.bloomfieldpress.com/supreme.htm

SUPREME COURT GUN CASES

Attorney David B. Kopel
Attorney Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D.
Alan Korwin

The most important set of words written
about the constitutional guarantee to arms.

44 cases included unedited, 92 cases in all!
(We were stunned that there were so many!)

More than 1,000 highlighted quotations!

Plain English descriptions for every case.

Essays on the significance of the High Court's decisions.

The decisions of the Supreme Court are beautifully thought out works of logic and reason (usually). In exquisite detail, the highest court of the land has interpreted our rights under the Second Amendment—and while some people have taken lately to belittling those freedoms, the High Court has recognized an individual right to arms in America for more than two centuries.

Here's the bottom line: the Supreme Court has upheld the legal tradition and historical record of private gun ownership, self defense, and armed self defense, since the country began.

They have not been quiet on the subject, and they have not disparaged individual rights—the days of saying that are now over. The High Court could change it's mind of course, but only by rejecting a record built up for hundreds of years. Don't take anyone's word for it any longer—see for yourself what the Supreme Court has said.

A superior reference, very quotable, an affordable one-volume debate winner.

If you think your gun rights are important, this book is for you.

If you represent clients on gun issues, get this unique resource.

Reporters can use this book to accurately reflect the current record.

This massive project, six years in the making,
was released in September 2003.
Get yours today!

672 pages, only $24.95 (+S&H $4 ea., $5 for 2, $6 for 3)
Special Lawyer's/Library Hardcover edition, $49.95 (+S&H)

jackpine savage

03-09-2007, 05:54 PM

I always assumed the framers wantd the states to maintain their own militias, or national guard, as a hedge against a tyrannical central power developing from the federal government

bgbill

03-09-2007, 05:55 PM

Bret, argue with the judge. I don't know when the National Guard was established, but I believe there were state militias prior to that time. The fact that militias prior to the Guard had a different name doesn't change the principle.

Judges have been wrong before, I can post a bunch of previous stances they took that are wrong now.

In my question you said National Guard, yet when the constitution was ratified, there was no National Guard, so how can the second amendment be about an entity that did not exist?

The Constitution and the Bill of rights is about individual Rights, you may not like all of them, but that does not change the fact that they are individual rights.

I think I will celebrate this ruling by buying a Barret M109 :thumps:

Bill McIntyre

03-09-2007, 05:57 PM

In my question you said National Guard, yet when the constitution was ratified, there was no National Guard, so how can the second amendment be about an entity that did not exist?

I believe I already covered that.

bgbill

03-09-2007, 06:02 PM

I believe I already covered that.

No Bill you tried to spin it.

Can you tell me what the militia is?

Bill McIntyre

03-09-2007, 06:05 PM

Militia is the activity of one or more citizens organized to provide defense or paramilitary service, or those engaged in such activity. The word can have five somewhat different meanings:
Defense activity, as well as those engaged in it, when it is defense of the public, its territory, property, and laws
The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the law, or to respond to a disaster
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers, also called an Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces
The national police forces in Russia, and other former CIS countries, or the former Soviet Union: Militsiya
In any of these cases, a militia is distinct from a regular army. It can serve to supplement the regular military, or it can oppose it, for example to resist a military coup. In some circumstances, the "enemies" against which a militia is mobilized are domestic political opponents of the government, such as strikers. In many cases the role, or even the existence of a militia, is controversial. For these reasons legal restrictions may be placed on the mobilization or use of militia.
Central to the complete concept of "militia" as used by the American Founders in the second amendment of the Constitution was that it be "well-regulated", which meant well-trained and well-organized, but not necessarily by government. Thus, the term would not have been properly used to refer to an armed, unruly mob, but only to persons who behave in a responsible, law-enforcing mode, and who might act to control an armed, unruly mob as an "insurrection".

jackpine savage

03-09-2007, 06:08 PM

December 13 1636, Massachusetts organized town militas into 3 permanent milita regiments. This date marks the birth of the MA National Guard and is celebrated as the birth of the National Guard of the US.
The MA National Guard web site: http://www.mass.gov/guard/museum/armyhistory.htm

bgbill

03-09-2007, 06:12 PM

jackpine savage

03-09-2007, 06:14 PM

I also see "well-regulated" What exactly does that mean?

chuam

03-09-2007, 06:16 PM

Bill,
Here is the full text of the 2nd Amendment,

Amendment II

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.

what exactly does this portion mean?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

I see where it says "People" not state.

Can you explain how it does not mean what it says?

But you're not reading the first clause which sets up the second clause.

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.

Are the people in this country who own guns part of a well regulated militia?

bgbill

03-09-2007, 06:18 PM

I also see "well-regulated" What exactly does that mean?

I will look up the exact meaning as it was used back then, but well regulated was to mean properly functioning, aimed (sighted), it was not about forming a state or federal military, the founding fathers were very fearful of an oppressive or too strong of a government, that is why they wrote the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Why would they write the Bill of Rights affording rights to the people in the 1st, and 3rd -10th, but give States rights in the 2nd?

Bill McIntyre

03-09-2007, 06:19 PM

Wayward Son

03-09-2007, 06:19 PM

To know what it means, you have to go to how the language was used at the time it was written. I have read historians who claim that back then "well regulated" did NOT mean "controlled by the government", it meant that they were expected to show up with full kit, in servicable condition & reasonably skilled in it's care & use.

bgbill

03-09-2007, 06:20 PM

But you're not reading the first clause which sets up the second clause.

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.

Are the people in this country who own guns part of a well regulated militia?

The Militia was every able bodied male over the age of 18, but in today's terms you can not discriminate against women, so I would think women have the same 2nd amendment rights as men do.

bgbill

03-09-2007, 06:21 PM

Can you explain why they bothered to mention a well regulated militia if it didn't have some significance? They could easily have just said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" without those other clauses if they didn't add something.

Bill,

Look up the what they meant by "A Well regulated Militia", it certainly was not a state or federal organization.

jackpine savage

03-09-2007, 06:21 PM

they were also fearful of a tyrannical government since we had just fought an 8 year war ridding ourselves of one. State controlled militas would be one way to prevent that from occurring.

Bill McIntyre

03-09-2007, 06:23 PM

Bill,

Look up the what they meant by "A Well regulated Militia", it certainly was not a state or federal organization.

Where would I look up what they meant by those words? The fact that we aren't sure is why courts differ.

bgbill

03-09-2007, 06:27 PM

Where would I look up what they meant by those words? The fact that we aren't sure is why courts differ.

Bill,

You know where to find this, isn't your wife an English Teacher?

But in case she isn't, here are a few places to look.

Dictionary's of the time period, the Federalist papers and the writings of the original framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The reasons courts differ is due to political beliefs, there are way too many activist judges who legislate from the bench based on their personal beliefs.

Bill McIntyre

03-09-2007, 06:41 PM

Bret, if you want to prove something to me, please don't ask me to do your research.

An activist judge = a judge who disagrees with your interpretation.

jackpine savage

03-09-2007, 06:43 PM

And there is the dilemma, one group believes the Constitution should be read in its original form free from interpretation while the other group believes the Constitution should be interpreted to fit the times, thereby evolving with the Republic itself. I have a hunch that this age old debate won't be settled here. But please keep me posted I will read up on it when I return from the pub :D

bgbill

03-09-2007, 06:46 PM

Bret, if you want to prove something to me, please don't ask me to do your research.

An activist judge = a judge who disagrees with your interpretation.

I am not asking you to do my research, I suggested you do your own research.

I already know what the 2nd amendment means, and apparently the 2 DC judges do as well, hopefully the Supreme Court will get the case and rule on it according to what the second amendment means.

What I mean by activist judges are judges who impose their will by basically making laws through their rulings, the Court system and judges are not to make laws, just make rulings based on what the current laws are.

dugout

03-09-2007, 07:48 PM

Bret, if you want to prove something to me, please don't ask me to do your research. An activist judge = a judge who disagrees with your interpretation. Bill, there is more at this link than you might care to read. It's pretty clear what the intended meaning of the amendment was, based upon the discussions at the time and the "negotiations" during the final drafting and ratification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Assuring the right of individual citizens to "keep" (own) firearms and to (carry) "Bear" firearms was the primary concern. Additionally "shall not be infringed" was directed toward both state and federal governments. The ultimate concern was the federalist didn't want the states to control arms and the non-federalists didn't want them controlled federally. We ended up with "Shall not be infringed", period, end of story with no qualifications. They boiled it down to the simplest form in an effort to avoid exactly what has happened in many current interpretations. Federal and state laws, both in direct conflict with the federal consitutional rights of the citizens.

Idaho has one of the best state constitutions on the subject. It clearly and specifically takes the right to pass ANY law which regulates, or limits the personal ownership of firearms, away from the state assembly. It's not happening anyway, anyhow!

mnguy

03-09-2007, 08:25 PM

they were also fearful of a tyrannical government since we had just fought an 8 year war ridding ourselves of one. State controlled militas would be one way to prevent that from occurring.

I wass taught in school that, aside from the ability to buck off a tyrannical overarching federal government, a state militia was also handy for taking care of various affairs of military need. One such need would be taking care of the natives attacking citizens.

Another affair was in case a foreign power decided to attack US soil each state would have some form of military already in place to "bandage the wound", so to speak, until the rest of the states and the federal army could make it to the location. We didn't exactly have tanks and planes and railroads back then so such a measure was a necessity.

Mobile Diver

03-10-2007, 07:38 AM

The first clause in the Second Amendment only mentions the militia as one reason for the right to keep & bear arms. It doesn't say "only because we need a militia" or "if a stupid liberal judge at some point decides the militia is obsolete the right goes away". Under no other circumstance would language so clear be considered ambiguous. The court recognized this in its opinion.

Wayward Son

03-10-2007, 07:46 AM

I really am curious if any of you who buy the collective rights view have any sort of data to support that? I mean go back to the founders, those who wrote the amendment & find something to indicate that this was supposed to be "the right of the states" to keep & bear arms, rather than "the people", as it was written?

Here are a few quotes from them:

* James Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. A well-regulated Militia, composed of the people trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

* Samuel Adams: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

* Thomas Paine: "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property ... horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

* George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

* George Washington: "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty teeth. A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

* Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ... The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

* Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for, concerning the people at large, is that they be properly armed."

Nowhere in there do I see any indication that they mean anything other than the citizenry at large. I've never read anything written by any of them to indicate that, nor have I ever read about any legal position taking that view until well into the 1900's after the anti gun movement had gotten cranked up. So how is it that this collective right was unknown as such for well over the 1st 100 years of our history as a nation?

Even the dissenting judge in this opinion did not dispute that it is an individual right. Her dissent was based on the fact that DC is not a state.

As for this other notion, that of the constitution being a living document, well yes it is. But not in the way that poster meant.

Most people, when they use that term, meant that we can simply make the thing mean what we want when we want it, regardless of what it actually says or what those who wrote it meant & intended.

It was written & we are structured so the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Law, not suggestion. If the law is to be changed, ie the document to "live" and adapt to the times, it was written to accommodate that. Through the amendment process. If the people find that it's not addressing the needs, they are to amend it. If possible. That process was written to be a high bar to cross, difficult to do, for a reason.

In the last 100 years we've gotten more & more used to the notion of simply ignoring it, passing whatever laws we want & the BOR be damned. Faster & easier to do than to actually do it the right way. And we're increasingly finding our courts making decisions that totally ignore it, including those from the USSC. So in many ways we have reached the time when it's largely meaningless as to what it says, near as I can tell in practice. But once in a while we have a ruling that takes it into account & considers what it really was written to mean, so maybe it's not quite dead yet.

jackpine savage

03-10-2007, 07:52 AM

Mobile Diver

03-10-2007, 08:08 AM

Here is a link to the opinion itself. Not a bad read at all for a court opinion.

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Notice the majority references the amendment itself, while the dissenting judge tries to ignore it entirely & then basically argue DC residents have no constitutional rights.
The majority also covers reasonable regulation pretty well.

Wayward Son

03-10-2007, 08:12 AM

There is a tremendous amount of legal precedent that we can't license or tax the exercise of a right. The right to free speech, for example. At one point, I think in NY City about 100 years ago, there was an attempt to tax newspapers by the word. Couldn't be done as it amounted to taxing a right.

As for prohibiting someone who commits a serious enough offense, I don't really have a problem with that but in reality it's proven to be an exercise in futility. There simply is no shortage of criminals with lengthy records getting guns despite all the laws that says they can't. They are, after all, criminals.

I would take a more direct approach to the matter: If society has determined that you are too dangerous to be trusted with arms, we just don't let you out of prison, period. Either life, or if the offense warrants it, death. But deal with the offenders & leave the peaceable man & woman alone.

dugout

03-10-2007, 09:49 AM

Wayward-your post is pretty convincing and I agree with it for the most part. However, nowhere do any of the authors you cite bring up whether the government has the right to pass laws that would allow fo rthe regulating or licensing of firearms. Just curious about that. I have no problem with firearms, I think crimes committed with firearms should have strict punishment and that convicted fleons should no tbe allowed to obtain a firearm lawfully. Where would that fall under your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

"shall not be infringed" without qualification seems to make it clear. Regulations are infringements by definition, right? This is the whole point. The federalists, and non-federalist attempted to word the amendment so neither had the right to infringe upon the rights as they each feared the other would wrongly do so.

firefyterx

03-10-2007, 11:15 PM

Nice post wayward that was great I will use that.

Steel Shootin'

03-11-2007, 07:41 AM

Wayward,

Do you get as uptight with every decision that erodes the other nine amendments to the Bill of Rights? Many NRA supporters do not watch or even care as government has shredded the Bill of Rights over the last 27 years or so (thanks in no small part to Nixon's nomination of Rehnquist to the Court). In fact, to take it one step further, many NRA members would SUPPORT the erosions to the Bill of Rights (as long as it does not affect the Second Amendment). It is as though the Second Amendment exists in a vacuum.

The NRA takes an ultra hard line stance on the Second Amendment, unwilling to surrender an inch of ground, in part due to a concern that even minor concessions will eventually result in more draconian legislation. The ACLU, on the other hand, goes about the other nine amendments the exact same way, refusing to surrender an inch. I would venture a guess that most NRA members HATE the ACLU, in part because the ACLU has been less aggressive in protecting the Second Amendment. Putting aside the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment, can you -- or the NRA -- fault them for their tactics and approach to the other nine amendments? Do you not see that they are simply working off the exact same playbook as the NRA? Why do most NRA supporters want an ultra strict interpretation of the Second Amendment, but remain so willing to allow the rest of the Bill of Rights to be twisted beyond recognition?

Having said all of that, I used to be of the opinion that the NRA was wrong because they gave no concessions whatsoever. I allowed my membership to expire, because I thought their position was overly rigid to the point that they put the interests of society behind their own agenda. I have since changed my position on that, and appreciate more as to why they take that position. In other words, I am more apt to believe and understand that any concessions will lead to draconian laws and regulations. However, I also feel that way about the rest of the Bill of Rights, and wish more people did as well (especially the gun toting "Rush is Right" conservatives). The Bill of Rights is the foundation of our freedoms as American Citizens. You either accept that, or reject it. It is hypocritical for one to cherry-pick just those rights that they like or deem appropriate.

Scott

Wayward Son

03-11-2007, 09:27 AM

Actually, I do. It's just that this is my main issue so I know more about it & am able to discuss it in far more depth.

To say "the ACLU has been less aggressive in protecting the Second Amendment" is akin to describing Katrina as "a movement of air". The ACLU does nothing to protect it because they are of the opinion that it is settled law that the 2nd does not apply to individuals. They are on record as saying that, so don't look to them for squat on this issue.

Steel Shootin'

03-11-2007, 10:16 AM

Wayward, I was talking more in general. A lot of die hard second amendment guys couldn't begin to describe any other part of the Bill of Rights. They do not understand that erosion of other civil liberties will in turn affect the Second Amendment. For example, could unreasonable/warantless searches and seizures (4th Am) be used as a govt tool to take your guns? Yes, it easily could. Could the government enact legislation that enables it to merely suspect you of a crime, and forfeit your guns without so much as formal charges or a hearing? Yep, already can and does do that. Yet, when case after case destroying the Fourth Amendment comes out, I doubt it registers as a blip on the radar of the NRA. That is myopic and will eventually come back to bite them.

The ACLU's position on the Second Amendment, in my opinion, is inconsistent with their rabid approach to the remaining amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I think that is a mistake on their part, and in a similar manner, it opens them up to complaints of cherry picking. This will be hard for those members of the "God, Guns and Glory" mentality to understand, but in many ways the ACLU and the NRA should be the best of friends.

Wayward Son

03-11-2007, 10:20 AM

Maybe they should be, but it's not gonna happen until & unless the ACLU gets on the right side of the 2nd.

mnguy

03-11-2007, 02:19 PM

Maybe they should be, but it's not gonna happen until & unless the ACLU gets on the right side of the 2nd.

So basically, you're saying that the NRA will damn the rest of the BoR because they don't agree with someone who fights for the other 9 eschewing the 2nd.

Wouldn't it be smarter to have the NRA hold the 2nd in concert with the ACLU holding up the rest of the BoR? I fail to see how, if banded together in a way where they don't step on each other's toes, they couldn't succeed in making all of America potentially a better place.

Wayward Son

03-11-2007, 02:40 PM

No, the NRA is focused on the 2nd. It's not the National Bill of Rights Association. It primarily deals with 2nd amendment issues, though there have been instances in the last 20 years or so when it's had to look at other areas, such as assaults on our 1st amendment rights that specilically targeted them as an org as well as other groups.

If the ACLU opposes us on the 2nd, it's unlikely that we're going to jump in bed with them, doncha think?

Steel Shootin'

03-11-2007, 03:16 PM

If the ACLU opposes us on the 2nd, it's unlikely that we're going to jump in bed with them, doncha think?

Not necessarily. If you believe that the sanctity of the entire Bill of Rights is necessary to protect the Second Amendment, and that any inroads or erosion of the other Constitutional Amendments can only potentially infringe on the Second Amendment, then an argument can be made that the ACLU agenda is in the best interests of the NRA. That's probably not what most NRA members want to hear, however, I could give you many examples of how Congress has done an "end-around" on the Second Amendment by eroding other civil liberties, like self-incrimination, or search and seizure.

100days-a-year

03-11-2007, 05:35 PM

Altho traditionally the ACLU supports "rights"either not specifically enumerated in any historical document or to degrees those who traditionally support 2nd amendment find distasteful.

Steel Shootin'

03-11-2007, 05:53 PM

Altho traditionally the ACLU supports "rights"either not specifically enumerated in any historical document or to degrees those who traditionally support 2nd amendment find distasteful.

Can you cite an example of the ACLU supporting rights "not specifically enumberated in any historical document." That's too bad that the NRA or you find some of the rights in the BOR "distasteful," but that is a slippery slope right there. Maybe the wrong group will soon find your right to bear arms distasteful. Then what?

100days-a-year

03-11-2007, 07:36 PM

Steel Shootin'

03-11-2007, 08:00 PM

abortion to name 1 ,but as you probably well know there are quite a few.

How about you supporting their(ACLU) positions with historical references....Oh, I'm sorry there aren't that many.Just recent over-extensions of judicial appointees(and voted ones) reconstruing the law(Patriot act included I admit)

Hmmm.... I ask you to cite just a single example of those many cases involving the ACLU "not specifically enumberated in any historical document" and you come back with "Abortion." Not surprising. Abortion, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, was based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (specifically, right to privacy). Last time I checked, the Constitution was a historical document. Just because you don't like the decision does not mean their was not a valid argument. You may feel that the right to privacy does not extend to abortions, but that doesn't mean that the position was not based on any prior document.

P.S.- I should also point out the obvious, which is that Roe was not even filed by the ACLU, thus rendering your "point" completely false.

bgbill

03-11-2007, 08:06 PM

Hmmm.... I ask you to cite just a single example of those many cases involving the ACLU "not specifically enumberated in any historical document" and you come back with "Abortion." Not surprising. Abortion, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, was based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (specifically, right to privacy). Last time I checked, the Constitution was a historical document. Just because you don't like the decision does not mean their was not a valid argument. You may feel that the right to privacy does not extend to abortions, but that doesn't mean that the position was not based on any prior document.

And in your reply that I should cite an example of an ACLU argument based on a historical document...... I just did.

Scott,

One thing that I am confused about on Roe v. Wade is, it is based on privacy, therefore giving a woman the right to choose to have an abortion.

Why can't the right to privacy also give a woman or a man, the right to be a prostitute or do drugs or other things that are outlawed as long as they are done in the privacy of their own home, or in a clinic?

junior

03-11-2007, 08:11 PM

Why can't the right to privacy allow me to smoke a hooter without risk of jail time or loss of my desk job?:D

dugout

03-11-2007, 08:12 PM

I don't believe I remember the ACLU protesting any of the blatant racism, represented by hiring, or college enrollment, quota policies which totally ignore the civil rights act of 1964.

They protect the rights of Pedophiles while ignoring the rights of the children they harm.
They protect the rights of every type of social deviant with out concern for the rights of the affected.
They would remove religion from schools with out regard for the rights of those who want religions education for children.

The ACLU most certainly picks sides and most assuredly pick and chooses when and what "rights" they choose to align themselves and who they choose to protect. :rolleyes:

Wayward Son

03-11-2007, 08:13 PM

I agree with the ACLU sometimes & only despise them the rest of the time ;)

dugout

03-11-2007, 08:17 PM

Why can't the right to privacy allow me to smoke a hooter without risk of jail time or loss of my desk job?:D

Probably because it's illegal in NC. Move to Maine and you can smoke all the hootch you want, in your home.

Steel Shootin'

03-11-2007, 08:17 PM

Scott,

One thing that I am confused about on Roe v. Wade is, it is based on privacy, therefore giving a woman the right to choose to have an abortion.

Why can't the right to privacy also give a woman or a man, the right to be a prostitute or do drugs or other things that are outlawed as long as they are done in the privacy of their own home, or in a clinic?

I agree, Bret. Believe me, I think consenting ADULTS should be allowed to do whatever they want IF it does not negatively impact another person. This is essentially the Libertarian mantra. If two consenting adults want to have sex for money, they should be allowed. Now how that will affect them in the afterlife is up to them to decide. Why should the government tell them they can't? If someone wants to smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer, then why can't he (if done in the privacy of his home). I prefer beer myself, but should I judge someone else when I myself am drinking a mind altering substance.

Steel Shootin'

03-11-2007, 08:28 PM

Probably because it's illegal in NC. Move to Maine and you can smoke all the hootch you want, in your home.

Wrong. Even if it is legal in a state, it is still illegal because it violates federal law. Even if you are a 55 year old female smoking because it helps the symptoms of your chemotheraphy (which you are having due to breast cancer), the feds can swoop in and arrest you.

Steel Shootin'

03-12-2007, 06:33 AM

I don't believe I remember the ACLU protesting any of the blatant racism, represented by hiring, or college enrollment, quota policies which totally ignore the civil rights act of 1964.

Are you kidding? The ACLU has filed many supporting amicus briefs on behalf of minorities related not only to the civil rights act, but other civil rights as well. I just finished a book about the landmark case of Mapp vs. Ohio, dealing with a Fourth Amendment search and seizure issue involving a black Ohio woman. It was the ACLU who filed a supporting brief, and made the most compelling arguments in front of the Supreme Court.

They protect the rights of Pedophiles while ignoring the rights of the children they harm. They protect the rights of every type of social deviant with out concern for the rights of the affected.

You need to understand a couple of things. When the ACLU or any criminal defense attorney for that matter represents a pedophile, raper, murderer, etc., they are not doing it not do defend that person or their horrible crime, but to defend the system. In fact, they are doing it in part to defend YOU and your family. What if you are wrongly accused of raping a woman, or murdering your neighbor? You will have a very quick change of heart about your rights, many of which have been defended and preserved by the ACLU. You will give your lawyer marching order to invoke every right provided under the constituion, and to FORCE the government to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt.

I talked to a very well known Black attorney from from the deep south last year at a conference, and he related a story of representing the head of the KKK in that region. You can imagine the grief he took from the Black community, and even white people for that matter. He explained that he had a moral obligation to defend the system, and that every person, no matter how horrible their crime, must be defended under our system of government. As a society, if we lose our civil liberties, then their is no longer a shield between us and the government. Look at Iraq under Sadaam for an example of what government is like when the citizens have no due process.

I am not here to defend every action taken by the ACLU. I am sure if it were my decision, I would have told them to stay clear of some of the cases they have involved themselves in. But I am also not so short sided as to believe that they are interested in protecting scum-of-the-earth criminals. I understand that they take these cases to protect the system, and the innocent. Nonetheless, they will continue to be hated by many, and seen as wanting to promote criminals.

Steel Shootin'

03-12-2007, 06:53 AM

I agree with the ACLU sometimes & only despise them the rest of the time ;)

Your (part time) hatred of the ACLU will instantly turn to adulation if you or a loved one are ever wrongly charged with a crime. If your attorney says, "There is a defense we can invoke," you will NOT say, "OK, but only if it is not something that was preserved by the ACLU." For most people, perspective changes when it is their oxe getting gored. ;)

Wayward Son

03-12-2007, 07:08 AM

I never said I hate them, so don't put words in my mouth.

Mostly what I know of them is what they get reported doing (and by extension, not doing). From that point of view it does seem that they are pretty biased but not absolutely so. They stood up for Limbaugh's position in FL, for example.

Mobile Diver

03-12-2007, 07:12 AM

I talked to a very well known Black attorney from from the deep south last year at a conference, and he related a story of representing the head of the KKK in that region. You can imagine the grief he took from the Black community, and even white people for that matter. He explained that he had a moral obligation to defend the system, and that every person, no matter how horrible their crime, must be defended under our system of government. As a society, if we lose our civil liberties, then their is no longer a shield between us and the government. Look at Iraq under Sadaam for an example of what government is like when the citizens have no due process.

That guy is from Texas if I remember correctly. I very much admire him. He really got excoriated by the Black community.

Steel Shootin'

03-12-2007, 07:12 AM

I never said I hate them, so don't put words in my mouth.

Oh, I am sorry, that's right. You said "despise." How careless and misleading of me. :rolleyes:

Steel Shootin'

03-12-2007, 07:13 AM

That guy is from Texas if I remember correctly. I very much admire him. He really got excoriated by the Black community.

The guy I talked to was from Virginia, but there have been other examples too, Steve.

Mobile Diver

03-12-2007, 07:19 AM

I think we are off-topic here. THe ACLU is a different problem from 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. The real issue is that most Federal judges think we the people have no business being armed & are willing to twist the plainest of language to achieve their desired result. The DC Court of Appeals simply said the 2nd Amendment means what it says. It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with this. But the potential is very real that every law-abiding citizen will be able to carry a handgun legally. Not a moment too soon in my opinion.

Bill McIntyre

03-12-2007, 10:08 AM

They stood up for Limbaugh's position in FL, for example.

And they stood up for the American Nazi Party's right to parade through a neighborhood in which a lot of holocaust survivors lived. Since a lot of off-the-record bitching about them is that they are "a bunch of Jew lawyers," they can hardly be considered anti-Semitic. They were defending a principal.

http://www.freeessays.cc/db/38/pbk163.shtml

Wayward Son

03-12-2007, 01:07 PM

Finally remembered it, the other case was Emerson in the 5th circuit court. In that case the court found & extensively documented their finding that the 2nd is indeed an individual right, but that Emerson had not had his rights violated, so no existing laws were struck down. I don't recall exactly what he was disputing, i think it came from charges of possessing guns while under a restraining order, which his wife's attorney had filed during their divorce. Something like that.

Mikerotch

03-12-2007, 03:03 PM

It seems as though those of you on the "right" and those of you on the "left" agree as to the need to affirm the Bill of Rights. I find that encouraging. Now, if those of you on the left will agree that "legislating" from the bench is a bad idea and those of you on the right will agree that G.W. Bush and his blatant disregard for our constitution is a travesty, we can progress as a freedom loving nation. With regard to the D.C. case, some of you may be interested in what the only elected official in Washington who respects our Constitution thinks about it.
Below is congressman Ron Paul's weekly address :

The DC Gun Ban

March 12, 2007

"Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia 's nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years.

Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1 st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron.

Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King's soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them.

In the 1700s, militias were local groups made up of ordinary citizens. They were not under federal control! As a practical matter, many of them were barely under the control of colonial or state authorities. When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well-regulated militia," it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so.

The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed. In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army.

Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe-- as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book "More Guns, Less Crime," scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control--like Washington DC--experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed.

Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood. The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People's lives and safety are at stake.

Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government."

Mikerotch, Rabid Ron Paul Supporter

Bill McIntyre

03-12-2007, 03:18 PM

Now, if those of you on the left will agree that "legislating" from the bench is a bad idea ---

Very often, what the right refers to as "activitist judges legislating from the bench" simply indicates that one of the right's oxes was gored and/or that the judge just didn't agree with the right's interpretation.

On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control--like Washington DC--experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed.

Is it at least possible that the strict gun control was the result of higher rates of murder and violent crime rather than the cause?

Correlations like that are tricky. For instance, Louisiana has the highest murder rate in the nation and also has capital punishment. Does the violence of the state promote violence among its citizens? Or does it execute a lot of people because its citizens are more violent? Does the fact that it has capital punishment and still has the highest murder rate show that capital punishment is no deterrent, or would the murder rate be even higher without the deterrent effect?

In any case, no amount of gun control is likely to have much effect on murder rates in a place the size of DC where anyone can drive a few miles to Virginia and buy guns by the case. The only way we would have much of an idea whether gun control works is if it were applied uniformly across the country.

Wayward Son

03-12-2007, 03:27 PM

Bill, I have posted to you in the past about Lott's work. Why don't you read it & then criticize it rather than speculate on what he may or may not have done?

He is an economist & he approached the problem as such. He asked the question "Do gun controls laws save more lives than they cost?" & set about to answer it. he provides his data - all of it, which is the most complete gathering of such in American history- and submitted his data & work for peer review.

I recommend getting the 2nd edition, as in it he addresses some questions that were raised by critics after the 1st edition was published.

Mikerotch

03-12-2007, 03:55 PM

Very often, what the right refers to as "activitist judges legislating from the bench" simply indicates that one of the right's oxes was gored and/or that the judge just didn't agree with the right's interpretation.

Agreed that it is sometimes the case, and at other times it is clearly "activism". The recent "eminent domain" case in Connecticut comes to mind. IMHO, the rulings were clearly "activist" from the bottom all the way up.

Is it at least possible that the strict gun control was the result of higher rates of murder and violent crime rather than the cause?

I would go so far as to say it's probable. Governments always address problems with rules and regulations. But I would also venture to say that the legislation has had somewhere between no effect and negative effect, if the truth were known.
With regard to the capital punishment thing, I pretty well straddle the fence.
I have no problem with convicted criminals forfeiting the right to live, but I am consistent in my belief that government does little, if anything right, thus I question whether it is worth the risk of putting an innocent person to death.

The only way we would have much of an idea whether gun control works is if it were applied uniformly across the country.

I know it's old, but the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns" adage is incredibly true. If it did curtail violent crime, the price we as a whole would pay, would be much greater. ( Please see "tyrant" section )

Mikerotch, All 10 Amendments Advocate.

bgbill

03-12-2007, 04:16 PM

In any case, no amount of gun control is likely to have much effect on murder rates in a place the size of DC where anyone can drive a few miles to Virginia and buy guns by the case. The only way we would have much of an idea whether gun control works is if it were applied uniformly across the country.

Bill,

In Florida it has been legal to carry a gun since about 1987, and violent crime has went down, why do you think that is?

Isn't it against the law to murder someone?

If a guy is going to commit murder, do you really think he is going to worry about breaking a gun law?

BTW the gun laws that are on the books rarely get enforced anyway, they are usually the 1st ones dropped in plea deals because of the harsh mandatory sentences.

Case in point my Dentist killed a guy, was convicted of second degree murder, and got 25 years, had he been tried and convicted of the 10, 20 Life Law, he would have gotten life, yet for some reason, the state did not charge him with the gun crime.

Criminals do not follow laws, why pass more laws, that infringe upon our Rights?

I think Virginia has a one gun a month law, anyone who buys a case of guns, is going to get checked out by the ATF.

Mikerotch

03-12-2007, 04:36 PM

anyone who buys a case of guns, is going to get checked out by the ATF.

And they should not be. There is no constitutional basis for any federal agency to regulate alcohol, tobacco, or firearms. ( Not that you were advocating such )

Mikerotch, Opposed To The Existence Of A Bureau Of A,T, & F

mcjaret

03-12-2007, 04:44 PM

Last I checked, the 9th Circuit had ruled the 2nd Amendment a collective right and now the 5th Circuit and the DC circuit have ruled it an individual right. The DoJ also has taken the position its an individual right. Where the NYT came up with 9 circuits ruling the other way is beyond me. We do have a definite conflict in the Circuits and a Supreme Court resolution is possible.

They may find a way to avoid that because I'm not sure either side in the debate wants to throw the dice for the entire ball of wax. Those of us who own, carry, and/or enjoy firearms don't want to risk any chance of a decision saying we have NO individual right to keep and bear arms any more than Bill M relishes the idea of a decision giving any consenting adult the right to carry anything from a .25 auto to a .50 cal anywhere he or she wants to go.

BTW, I just looked at the 14th Amendment again. Strangely, after some of the representations here, the word "privacy" does not appear in the 14th Amendment, nor do I see it in the Bill of Rights. Quite in fact, I don't believe it appears ANYWHERE in the Constitution. Having actually been required to read Roe v. Wade a couple of times in past years, what the Court said was that "privacy" was a implied "penumbral" right. (Penumbra being an "outlying, surrounding region; periphery; fringe." American Heritage Dictionary) The Court reasoned that since most the Amendments in the Bill of Rights effectively deal with "the right to be left alone," privacy concerns surround the express, enumerated rights; thus the "right to privacy" must exsit and be enforceable. Whether you think the end result is right or wrong, most constitutional scholars agree the Court created this "right" out of whole cloth.

Steel Shootin'

03-12-2007, 05:11 PM

Strangely, after some of the representations here, the word "privacy" does not appear in the 14th Amendment, nor do I see it in the Bill of Rights.

Not sure if that is supposed to reference anything I have said, but let me assure you that none of my prior comments were meant to either interpret Roe in any detail, or state whether the decision was right or wrong. Jesus, I haven't reviewed Roe v. Wade in years. I was pointing out that the issues were based on the US Constitution, and the Court's interpretation of that document. I think they based their decision on the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.

The fact that "privacy" is not mentioned does not mean that the Court made up a right out of thin air. As we all recall from Con Law I and II, many cases are based on interpreting the breadth of the Constitution, including whether the right is in the penumbra. Many of the scholars I have read applaud Roe v. Wade, although I have no doubt that there are many who disagree with the holding. But yes, I understand that there are those who argue that Roe was unconstitutional and created a right not to be found. I can't recall if it was White or Rehnquist who wrote the dissent, but I think that is a point that was made. That does not mean that the case was not based on the Constitution. The whole case was about interpreting the Constitution. Many disagree with the Court's interpretation. What's new?

Incidentally, if we start talking about abortion now, this thread will qualify for the most derailed thread in the history of Spearboard. I think I'll go to the sideline now. As much as I would love to talk about Roe v Wade and "penumbra theories" and when life begins, I need to find a more enjoyable way to spend my evening.....perhaps after I do my 3 mile jog tonight I'll make a nice gin and tonic (if I can ever get out of my office tonight). Hope all is well out in Hernando.

junior

03-12-2007, 05:28 PM

All I see is conservatives wanting to save babies, but club seals, and liberals wanting to kill babies and save seals:confused: I just don't get this shyt...

f94gator

03-12-2007, 05:36 PM

I need to find a more enjoyable way to spend my evening.....perhaps after I do my 3 mile jog tonight I'll make a nice gin and tonic ...

Seems like a good time to break out a ...

Hey Scott!! ***** YOU!!!!! :D :D :D

Steel Shootin'

03-12-2007, 08:31 PM

Seems like a good time to break out a ...

Hey Scott!! ***** YOU!!!!! :D :D :D

That ain't right, man. I got no mod powers to defend myself against you. :lol:

Bill McIntyre

03-12-2007, 08:36 PM

All I see is conservatives wanting to save babies, but club seals, and liberals wanting to kill babies and save seals:confused: I just don't get this shyt...

Begging your pardon. This liberal wants to save babies but thinks we may have too damn many seals in California, and wouldn't mind if many of them would volunteer for humane sterilization (at the expense of the state of course).

f94gator

03-12-2007, 08:49 PM

That ain't right, man. I got no mod powers to defend myself against you. :lol:

Bwa Ha Ha Ha!!! :thumps:

jackpine savage

03-12-2007, 08:51 PM

Save the seals from the handguns :D

bgbill

03-12-2007, 08:53 PM

Save the seals from the handguns :D

Too bad we don't have Seals in Florida. ;)

Bill McIntyre

03-12-2007, 08:54 PM

I wish we could send you some.

bgbill

03-12-2007, 08:54 PM

I wish we could send you some.

Can you eat them?

junior

03-12-2007, 08:55 PM

Too bad we don't have Seals in Florida. ;)

Just what you need...seal zones to go with the manatee zones...

Bill McIntyre

03-12-2007, 08:55 PM

I bet you could.

bgbill

03-12-2007, 08:57 PM

Just what you need...seal zones to go with the manatee zones...

I like Manatee Zones :thumps: it is a lot easier to run em' over there. :D

junior

03-12-2007, 08:58 PM

Seals are pretty fast. I doubt you could hit one if you tried.

bgbill

03-12-2007, 09:01 PM

Seals are pretty fast. I doubt you could hit one if you tried.

If it is a narrow channel, you should be able to get them with the skeg, plus my boat is pretty fast. ;)

jackpine savage

03-12-2007, 09:06 PM

don't think they taste that good, lots of blubber. We have tons of them and it never crossed my mind to eat them, they smell like dead fish

jackpine savage

03-12-2007, 09:07 PM

we have harbor and grey seals, they disappear when the boats gets within 20 yard sof them.

Bill McIntyre

03-12-2007, 10:19 PM

They may find a way to avoid that because I'm not sure either side in the debate wants to throw the dice for the entire ball of wax. Those of us who own, carry, and/or enjoy firearms don't want to risk any chance of a decision saying we have NO individual right to keep and bear arms any more than Bill M relishes the idea of a decision giving any consenting adult the right to carry anything from a .25 auto to a .50 cal anywhere he or she wants to go.

OK, setting the seal issue aside for a few minutes- a deal that would avoid either extreme sounds great to me, but is there any mechanism for that?

I mean I know that in a civil suit the two sides can come to an agreement before leaving it to the judge or jury, and in a criminal case the DA can reach a plea bargain and present it to the judge for approval, but is there any parallel for that in a constitutional case?

I would think that it remains unresolved in case law as it now stands with appellate courts being in conflict, and if it gets appealed to the Supremes, they would be duty bound to decide what the amendment meant. Of course that assumes they would take the case, but I would think they would almost have to. And if they didn't, then no one really knows what the 2d Amendment means.

But then I ain't no lawyer.

Bill McIntyre

03-12-2007, 10:34 PM

we have harbor and grey seals, they disappear when the boats gets within 20 yard sof them.

Our harbor seals follow us all around on dives, grasp our fins to their chests, try to touch their noses to our masks, etc. They wouldn't be hard to hit.

Our sea lions move a lot faster, but they try to take our fish of our shafts or our stringers and can get quite aggressive. A friend of mine was trying to protect a white sea bass by tucking it under his arm and when a big bull sea lion came at him, he jammed a knife up through its lower jaw.

Another friend of mine was cleaning a yellowtail on the swim step of my boat, and a big bull took the fish out of his hands. They are not shy.

mnguy

03-13-2007, 12:53 AM

Our harbor seals follow us all around on dives, grasp our fins to their chests, try to touch their noses to our masks, etc. They wouldn't be hard to hit.

Our sea lions move a lot faster, but they try to take our fish of our shafts or our stringers and can get quite aggressive. A friend of mine was trying to protect a white sea bass by tucking it under his arm and when a big bull sea lion came at him, he jammed a knife up through its lower jaw.

A friend of mine was cleaning a yellowtail on the swim step of my boat, and a big bull took the fish out of his hands. They are not shy.

I was staring one in the face from about 1.5' away while in the water once. The only thing that kept it from charging was the 3-prong on my polespear hovering in front of its face with the bands ready to raise hell.

That's one hell of a shoredive, backpedaling with your elbows locked at your sides polespear ready to trade lives with a 12' 1000lb mass of angry marine mammal. The saddest part is, say it attacked me and I killed it after being bit, I would probably still go to jail because I poked it.

For the record though, I was in the middle of a baitball comprised of 6-8" sardines that took up an entire cove from top to bottom at 35-40 feet and from point to point.

Bill McIntyre

03-13-2007, 12:57 AM

But what about that DC gun ban? :)

mnguy

03-13-2007, 01:08 AM

But what about that DC gun ban? :)

As long as they don't take my pellet rifles I'm fine. I don't think I coud rid myself of all the rodentia on my property if they took them.

I think that this thread has pretty much run its due course. The only thing left to see is how the Supreme Court will rule on it, provided they put it on the docket. Regardless of what happens in DC, I'm going diving tomorrow. :beer:

Wayward Son

03-13-2007, 07:39 AM

there is no assurance of how this may go. the DC circuit court may choose to hear it en banc & overturn this decision. Or they may sustain it. or they may do nothing & the district appeal it to the USSC.

In which case the USSC may or may not choose to hear it. They don't have to, they get to pick which cases they will hear & on average, they only hear about 10% of the ones submitted to them each year. They have full control over their choices & there is no way to compel them to hear it.

Even if they do, there is no real reason to expect them to rule on it based on the content & history of the 2nd. There have been a number of cases where they've ruled in ways that make no constitutional sense & some justices have publicly admitted that they have made their decisions based on foreign law, not our constitution.

So count on nothing.