Posted on 01/14/2008 3:32:05 PM PST by neverdem
Thanks nd.
Read the post - I want people to call the White House, to get Bush to withdraw the brief. I'm fully aware that the Court doesn't give a damn what the public thinks, only about the official filings that it receives (and even that is questionable).
Thanks for the ping!
More proof that our Muslim loving president. Compassionate conservative is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a Liberal in disguise. His recent positions on Israel allowing Palestinians to return to Israel proper, independence for Kosovo and now this, tells me wants a legacy so that liberals and the Saudis will praise him long after he has left us for his grave.
Conservatives had better understand that conservatism is a movement not a party and we had better make sure we don’t keep voting for pretend conservatives who try to placate the left.
This from Mister ""well the USSC says..." when it comes to the Commerce Clause.
I thought the DOJ had released some statement supporting the position that it was an individual right?
That must have been BEFORE the election...
"If you liked what they did to the Commerce Clause, you'll love what they're going to do to the second amendment."
Why anyone would want these clowns defining their second amendment rights is beyond me. And, you'll recall, I've said this from the get-go.
Dance, bureaucrat.
And it appears as though you're quite content to leave it that way.
Blown opportunity, RP.
WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.
August 24, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
It's 107 pdf pages long. I haven't read it.
So I was right.
They did release a statement supporting the “individual rights” view.
And it was BEFORE the election.
Nuff said.
I guess the lesson is “Run for office and you get to lie about anything you want, because you will never be held accountable”
How much more damage can shrub do before he goes back to Crawford?
You got it. A bad ruling would not affect the current legal status of the RKBA anywhere in the US. Agreed?
OTOH, there are potential upsides. SCOTUS could decide that the DC law is repugnant to the Constitution. Do you favor such a ruling? If not, what ruling do you favor?
It would be similar to the court's decision in Kelo. Do you believe that decision had no negative effect nationwide?
"OTOH, there are potential upsides. SCOTUS could decide that the DC law is repugnant to the Constitution."
The DC Circuit already ruled that. What's SCOTUS going to add? Tell me about these "upsides" of yours -- do you think SCOTUS will add machine guns and rocket launchers to home defense?
"If not, what ruling do you favor?"
Ooooh. I get to pick? I favor a ruling that awards me $10 million dollars.
Now that the fantasy part is out of the way, I think SCOTUS will rule that the DC Circuit went too far -- that even if the second amendment protected an individual right outside of a Militia, that right may be reasonably regulated by government under a rational basis review, not strict scrutiny.
The Supreme Court judges have. And in light of it, they're not gonna like DOJ's fudging of the subject in their brief in this case.
Not agreed. A bad ruling would be: DC keeps its prohibitions, and thus Congress can extend them to the whole USA. No handguns period, and all long guns must be permanantly locked up, most certainly affects the current legal status of the RKBA everywhere in the US.
Nice dodge. Let me ask again. Would a bad ruling in Heller change the legal status of the RKBA anywhere in the US: "YES" or "NO"?
The DC Circuit already ruled that. What's SCOTUS going to add?
If SCOTUS upholds Circuit, it doesn't have to add anything else. That alone would strengthen the RKBA in the US.
_____________________________
ME: What ruling do you favor?
Ooooh. I get to pick? I favor a ruling that awards me $10 million dollars
I would really like a straight answer to this. What would be the correct way for SCOTUS to rule in Heller, in your opinion? Like you said, "Don't hide. Don't slink away now. Stand up for what you believe in. Be counted."
Congress already banned "assault rifles" once, so I don't think Second Amendment case law is what has restrained them. It's fear of the voters at the ballot box. A bad ruling maintains the legal status quo.
No. Not directly.
"Nice dodge."
Dodge? Me? You're the one who's dodging the potential ramifications of a bad ruling by simply focusing on whether or not the ruling has a direct impact on current laws.
"If SCOTUS upholds Circuit, it doesn't have to add anything else. That alone would strengthen the RKBA in the US."
Why? If SCOTUS adds nothing, then the ruling only affects D.C.
"What would be the correct way for SCOTUS to rule in Heller, in your opinion?"
I don't like the word, "correct". That implies that any other decision is incorrect.
I told you how I think they will rule in my post #54. It's also quite possible they'll rule that the second amendment does not protect an individual right outside of a Militia.
Either decision is consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the second amendment.
DC has had these prohibitions what, 30 years now? What has kept Congress from extending them to the whole USA in those 30 years?
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.