Posted on 03/18/2008 1:09:26 PM PDT by guyshomenet
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are a nasty business.
Today the Supremes (depending on their disposition) heard or ignored arguments in the Heller Case, the Washington D.C. gun ban. The consensus among all of us who listened to the arguments is “we still don’t know how this is going to pan out.”
Crap.
Ginsberg, in her growing senile dementia, brought-up state bans on machine guns as a proxy for the ‘reasonable’ ban angle.
Sorry guys. The fight has just begun and will last long after they have shoveled dirt on our faces.
From the oral arguments and some insights into general dispositions, here is what I’m willing to wager.
(Excerpt) Read more at guysmith.org ...
Not sure I agree with this analysis. I would give Kennedy a ‘Yes” for the individual right position. He was one of its strongest defenders.
I hope the USSC affirms the 2A right. If not, the time to affirmatively exercise it will be upon us.
I think they’ll affirm the appellate court, that the 2A is an individual right, and it covers “common” arms such that whole classes of arms (handguns) cannot be banned.
But they’ll leave wiggle room for some restrictions on some weapons like machine guns, rocket launchers, explosives and such. They’ll also leave room for preventing certain persons from owning weapons (felons, insane persons).
They’ll probably also come down hard on overly-restrictive laws like that in DC where even long guns must not only be unloaded and locked, but utterly inoperable as well. I think they’ll say that the 2A has many purposes, only *one* of which is participation in the militia. It also guarantees a person’s right to defend themselves and their property, and the law like in DC effectively prevented that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.