Begin procedures? Letting people the hell alone requires a Government procedure?
What a bizzare statement.
Will this Court eventually rule on the Libby Case?
They said the District of Columbia would have to begin procedures to allow handgun possession in private homes unless yesterdays decision was stayed.
Well, it is a start.
Holy Shazaam Batman!
Right. Our Nation's Capitol is like Sadr City night after night and they're "making progress".
The only solution is to restore the rights of the (few) honest residents of DC to arm themselves...and to throw out the hacks that "lead" DC. Any of you that live in this area know just how miserable DC has become: rampant crime, trash in the streets, ridiculous parking laws/traffic patterns, eternal potholes, and panhandlers on every corner.
No surprise that even the churches have thick bars on their windows. Yet Mayor Fenty is focused on depriving people of their rights.. Shameful.
I heard this reported on Fox last night. No mention of the gun crime statistics in DC under "gun control," which I thought was weird. Doesn't DC have one of the highest crime rates -- including gun crimes -- in the country?
The bill of rights is the rights of the people as individuals. It is not a group thing. Read every item one by one. You will see that it cannot be divided into groups such as a militia, a particular religion, a particular newspaper.
Same circuit as "Warren v. DC." Could they actually be coming to their senses and allow individual citizens to protect themselves from the predators in their midst?
And even as we grieve for those who lost their lives, and our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, we may be able to find some sort of meaning in this tragedy by using it as a catalyst to revive national gun control efforts.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Good, that means the next step is probably the Supreme Court. If this is upheld by the Supreme Court, the effect will be nationwide. If DC doesn't appeal, then the effect, while important, is strictly local.
Another possibility is an intermediate hearing before the full DC Circuit court. However if that one upholds the decision, DC would presumably appeal to the Supreme Court, if not then the appellants will appeal.
The Supreme Court could refuse to hear the case, as they've done before. But if the case goes to the Supreme Court as is, that is with the DC laws declared unconstitutional, there will then be a clear disagreement between the circuits, and not in mere dicta. The SC will have a hard time refusing to hear the case if that is the situation before them. Not that they haven't been known to duck the Second Amendment before
Wow. Considering this is D.C., it's big big news.
Could this mean that Ginsburg would vote to affirm?
They write this like it's a bad thing.
Is this true? It seems to me that the NY Times is up to its usual tricks of distorting facts to make a point.
Do we have any attorneys who can put this in context? Billybob are you there?