Posted on 03/04/2008 6:53:13 PM PST by neverdem
Associated Press
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will quickly release audio tapes after the March 18 argument over gun rights. The case from the District of Columbia could resolve whether the Constitution gives individuals the right to own guns and, if so, whether the government may still strictly regulate gun ownership, including a ban on handguns.
The immediate, same-day release of audio tapes following arguments in major cases started in the 2000 presidential election, when the justices decided appeals of the Florida recount controversy in favor of George W. Bush.
The court has twice this term provided same-day audio. It was made available in cases involving the rights of prisoners detained by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the method of execution by lethal injection.
The court records arguments and ordinarily releases them at the end of each term. With television cameras barred from the court and reporters prohibited from using tape recorders in the courtroom, the availability of audio provides the public with a chance to hear the justices at work.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
'Way out in the boonies about 35 miles northeast of Houston.
Technically, I'm a part of the thriving metropolis of Huffman, population 312.
I love it.
I actually did say 6 some time ago. Then somebody here said they put in 8. So I said that.
How scary that the tone it rings at is truer now than it was when it was written.
To the best of my recollection, the P-47 was the only fighter we built with 8.
Are you the guy who hosts the “Texas Cowboy Memorial Shoot”?
Got chiggers?
Rereading it, it looks like it was written in late 1998 or 1999.
Eaker & TheMom are usually in charge of the event.
This year it's in Corpus.. there is a thread up, I'll find a link.
I think that's why they took the case. The DC Circuit Court ruled it a fundamental right, and I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will change that.
If I was Clarence Thomas, I would use this opportunity to ask my first question. Of course, that’s probably why I’m not a Supreme Court Justice and he is.
What do you think the Supreme Court will rule?
The second amendment was written to secure the individual right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated state Militia from federal infringement. If Congress refused to arm the Militias (under Article I, Section 8), Congress could not stop individuals from arming themselves to form a well regulated state Militia.
"Arms" are defined by each state. How individuals are to keep and bear them is up to each state. If Congress infinges on any of these areas, the state has standing to challenge the law in federal court.
Simple. Clean. No guesswork. No restrictions. No justifications.
When the second amendment is interpreted correctly.
The individual right to keep and bear arms outside of a Militia is protected by state constitutions. The State Supreme Court will define "arms", "keep" and "bear" for the citizens of that particular state based on their interpretation of the state constitution.
This year it's in Corpus.. there is a thread up, I'll find a link.
Here ya go . . . http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1853692/posts
Thanks.
Either they'll rule along the limited lines of what Nachoman said in post #54 or they'll rule Militia only. If they go with Circuit Court case precedent, it will be the latter.
Plus, the Miller decision doesn't help matters. Here you've got the U.S. Supreme Court implying that only Militia-type weapons are protected by the second amendment. Now, we can argue all day what exactly those weapons are, but it seems odd that the court would be saying that only military weapons are protected .... for civilian use.
Why make a distinction? Why not just say "all weapons". Criminy -- if you're protecting the most destructive of all weapons, why leave out a few?
There is a simple answer, of course. And that is that the second amendment only protects Militia-type weapons for those individuals in a Militia. But nobody wants to hear that. So just pretend I didn't say it.
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will quickly release audio tapes after the March 18 argument over gun rights... The immediate, same-day release of audio tapes following arguments in major cases started in the 2000 presidential election, when the justices decided appeals of the Florida recount controversy in favor of George W. Bush. The court has twice this term provided same-day audio. It was made available in cases involving the rights of prisoners detained by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the method of execution by lethal injection... the availability of audio provides the public with a chance to hear the justices at work.Thanks neverdem.
Who said anything about using AR-15s against tanks ? The typical government functionary drives a 4 door sedan,same goes for the party flunkies ,MSM propagandist,various other traitors to the Constitution.
Those are the targets combined with acts of sabotage with regard to the lights staying on & the phones working cause a great deal of trouble for a political class .
The greatest weapon however isn’t a gun but well thought & extremely well executed propaganda/public education campaign.
Wow, that Davy Crockett was a full on American superman. Just helped my 7 year old with a book report on him and was ASTONISHED at how much the man accomplished, with almost no education.
Dude knew his way around a rifle also - rivals TR as America's most noteworthy rifleman.
Studying his life should be mandatory reading for every grade school kid in America, but sadly most know more about Rosa Parks.
In response to the BATFE coming to every gun dealer and getting the records then going to every gun owner...
Well, there are 2300 BATFE agents and about 100 million gun owners. Do the math. Who is more likely to win that firefight? And believe me, Should SCOTUS rule the wrong way on this one, all hell is going to break loose.
SCOTUS is very aware that this is the most pivotal case in US history. I predict incorporation and a strong ruling in our favor with a 6-3 split.
Mike
A lot of the cannon used during the Revolution were privately owned. Also, we had private ARMED merchantmen which plied the seas and were one of the bases for the letters of marque and reprisal clause. Big guns, crew-served weapons, WERE and ARE still privately owned and are covered under the second amendment.
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.