TexasCHLforum.com

Yikes, that is kinda scary. It sounds like the judges do have some sanity though. They seem to be arguing that the lawyer is trying to reinterperet the constitution even though it has been understood to mean one thing for over 200 years. He is right on another thing too. If we can decide that a right is no longer necessary, could we erase other parts of the constitution? I think this will be a deciding factor in the case. It won't necessarily be made based on gun rights, but on whether they should open the can of worms that allows wonton changing of the constitution at will.

Why is it they focus on the first part and totally ignore the second part. You know the part that says

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

Not diggin' this stuff either...

Free Republic website is all over this as well...

The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional

What is the city's justification for the ban? They can't argue its to reduce crime - they have one of the hightest crime and murder rates in the country. Places where guns are allowed have lower crime rates.

What am I doing? Reason and logic don't work with this mindset.

But is this really a mindset or something more sinister? Sometimes I believe that all of this is a big smoke screen to cover the real agenda of the elites - disarming the masses in order for those in positions of power to control the general populus. An hint of that appears in the quote below:


That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"

WE in that sentence appears to mean the courts. Is this saying that the courts get to decide what is contained in the constitution? If that ever happens, we are toast. The courts have become too powerful and have exceeded their constitutional authority. Besides gun owership, what else could they decide is "no longer necessary"? Search warrants? Right to a trial?, Elections?

The Constitution has one purpose: We, the People...define the boundries of the federal government's responsibilities. It is simple, the feds may not infringe upon the personal ownership of firearms.

In this case, the local government takes actions that are contrary to the Consitution, then tries to get the supreme court to agree that the are correct.

We are a nation of laws, and attorneys have a role to play. Sometimes, it appears there are a few more attorney's than necessary.

Silberman is a good judge. He will get it right. Don't know anything about the other judge named though so there is always a chance that the other two judges will outvote Silberman. Still Silberman will probably write a good opinion that should give either a full panel or the Supremes pretty good grounds to squash that argument.

Thats good to hear. Thanks for the uplifting.

Get the big picture/expand your minds and get beyond words written on some paper...

Do not EVER base any "rights" you have on ANY written/legal document, in this case the US Constitution.

Or even something stated in "the law" for that matter.

Both are WHATEVER certain people in power SAY they are. Consequently, so-called "rights" contained within the written word are subject to change/deletion at any time by said powers.

If one MUST base his/her rights on something written, base them on the "unalienable/inalienable" rights mentioned -- but unfortunately NOT enumerated, i.e, they're stated as not enumerated (listed) so we are left to argue what THEY actually are -- in said Constitution...and then go on to say they are GOD-GIVEN rights, beyond anything man can say or do re: them since man has zero authority to mess with anything God-given (this argument probably won't work, however, on secular-humanists, progressives, liberals, and assorted tree-thumping pagans. But it doesn't matter, it's true anyway so proceed with it).

I submit -- and I'm not the first one to say this of course -- that self-defense is a God-given/inalienable right to EVERYONE [EDIT: And the gun is the tool needed to exercise said right; no tools = no right], even the plants and animals, and unless the law of man agrees with/supports said right, it is in error and therefore nullified/invalid. If the SCOTUS ever makes a ruling that is not in line with this truth, it should be ignored. The SCOTUS is not God, and *I* only listen to what the SCOTUS says when they speak rightly, not wrongly.

So look to a "higher" UNwritten law if you will.

I sure do, because not even the Constitution is safe from molestation nowadays.

I know it's a cliche, but think beyond the box...stop the focus on what's on paper. Often, that and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee...except at a Starbucks.

-- John D.

P.S. This post is not directed towards anyone in particular, it's just a heads-up.

thats why Abe Lincoln wrote what I have in my signature line.

Until the last year, while I supported the right to carry, I had never thought much about the second amendment. However it seems to me that one of the most fundamental rights is the right to life, right up there with the right to liberty and the right to pursue happiness. If so, then the right to defend oneself must be based on the right to life and must be a fundamental, if unenumerated right. I don't think I have ever seen that argued in court though.

308nato wrote:thats why Abe Lincoln wrote what I have in my signature line.

Your sig line:

We, the people are the rightful masters of both
the congress and the courts, not to overthrow
the constitution but to overthrow men who
pervert the constitution."Abraham Lincoln"

My, oh my, the irony.

Not to revisit the War of Yankee Aggression... but, it must be said that Lincoln was one of the greatest offenders of the Constitution. He suspended the right to Writ of Habeas Corpus, so that he could arrest (secretly, without warrant) Maryland legislators enroute to vote for secession; if they had not been arrested, Maryland would have voted for secession. (It would have been --err-- "uncomfortable" for DC to be completely surrounded by Confederate states.)

Let me be clear: slavery was and is despicable. But the oft-celebrated "Emancipation Proclamation" didn't free a single slave in the United States. It only freed those in the areas of Confederate States that were being held by Union forces. The slaves in the Union states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and the District of Columbia itself, were not affected by the Proclamation.

Not to mention West Virginia, which split from Virginia and declared itself a non-slave state, despite the Constitutional requirement that only Congress may set state boundaries.

Yet another example of how "constitutional rights" have been abused throughout history, and how we must guard against future abuses rather than accepting the status quo.

Kevin

KBCraig
I am sorry you couldnt see the quote as it pertains to the problems we
might be having with the liberal congress and courts that will try to rewrite
or delete certin amendmemts of the constution .I am sorry that I am not a history buff ,the last time I had a history lesson was in 1956 and the
teacher was so boring I slept threw most of the class.
As far as to what Lincoln did in his time I realy dont care , I worry
about tomorrow and the future my grands kids will have.

308nato,
I don't think that was meant as a slam to you. I do believe, however, that we will repeat the more shameful aspects of history if we do not learn from them.
I think his post was to highlight that Lincoln acted for political reasons; however, the quote is a good one if we examine the intentions of our hearts.

It most definitely wasn't a slam at you, 308nato. It's a slam at the educational system that glorifies Lincoln as a hero, instead of portraying him as he actually was: a Constitution-destroying thug.

So, I'm sorry that came across wrong. It's just a sore point.

Kevin