Posted on 05/02/2007 2:14:58 PM PDT by neverdem
The gun-grabbers have steered as far away from that as they possibly could for years, because they know if they lose it will be really bad for them.
They would prefer passing 2,000,000 local gun control laws and wear us down to losing one USSC case and being finished.
Going for a Roe v Wade style victory. It’s a big gamble, but like all big gambles sometimes you win big too
bump and bookmark
I should have RTFA.
They’re going for broke with this one because the tide of sentiment is going against them. More and more people are buying guns.
Mayor for Life Barry has moved to repeal the law - that would obviate the court case, and keep it out of the USSC.
I think Massachussets paid him off.
But the loser of that case will appeal to the US Supreme Court.
Four justices will grant certiorari: either 4 conservatives or 4 liberals, depending on which side wins.
And then the Supreme Court hears the case.
Justice Kennedy may be the deciding vote on yet another landmark case.
But here’s an interesting thought: Justice Souter was mugged jogging in Washington DC. He might think there’s a personal right to arms.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that there is a great difference between the right to bear arms and the right to fire them.
"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
There's reason for cautious optimism. Here's the actual paragraph from Parker:
"We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read "bear Arms" in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: "Surely a most familiar meaning [of 'carries a firearm'] is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ('keepand bear Arms') and Black's Law Dictionary . . . indicate: 'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for"bear Arms."
Do you now think Ginsburg and Souter will contradict themselves?
I thought you only had to be able to read English to figure that one out, but then I usually don't over-analyze things.
That’s just it - they’ve upped the stakes, and the consequences of failure are unthinkable for both sides.
They’re going for broke.
Any one out there have any confidence in our Supreme Court?
If you do then you are either on drugs or stupid.
Give them credit as they have allowed that partial birth is murder but what the hell else have they gotten right in the last ten years or so?
Got a few bucks? Yes you too can buy their vote like most judicial jurisdictions.
I forgot to add this:
The gungrabbers see the tide of sentiment turning against them; they see things like the Tennessee gun de-restriction, Governor Perry’s statement about the RKBa, the ever increasing numbers of states and places with CCW and/or open carry, the failure of their predicted bloodbaths after deregulation, and the reduction of their power in areas where their lies have become transparent to all.
They rightfully fear that the logical conclusion of their loss would be the total revocation of nearly all gun controls, “hard won” (in their opinion) over the course of a century.
Then we amend the Constitution to re-establish the individual RKBA. Do you honestly think that the legislatures of 3/4's of the states WOULDN'T pass such an amendment??? With 70% of to populace already believing that such a right exists.
If they win, the "awkward phase" will be over.
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.