Posted on 06/26/2008 3:55:39 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat
bump
Perhaps more importantly, now that the 2A is firmly established as an enumerated, personal right, any attempts to collect fees, require exams, etc should be treated no differently than voting rights ie poll taxes, qualification exams, etc have all consistently been struck down.
I was initially dismayed that the vote was 5-4, but on consideration, the ruling sets two very critical factors: private ownership & strict scrutiny. From this core foundation, thousands of gun laws will be successfully challenged.
I'll say this as well. It is quite possible that those four owe their lives to the other five. Justice Kennedy most likely understood that horrible truth.
I'll agree that it is a bit disappointing, but look at it this way: it isn't watered down, and a 6-3 or 7-2 decision would have been. This is also a clear majority opinion, not merely a plurality one.
The majority opinion also all but gave us incorporation on a silver platter, by mentioning that the post-Civil War Congresses certainly knew the meaning of the 2nd...including the same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment. Say hello to a successful challenge to Chicago's ban, courtesy of Justice Scalia.
After thinking about these facts, we should all be ecstatic.
Bush’s fault.
LOVE that picture. I’d love it even more on a T-shirt (all the better to give scumbag liberal gun grabbers apoplexy).
gonna have to post this on a few Brit forums for those who think guns in the states can be purchased like candy...
I would disagree. Appellate courts do not address issues that are not presented, but a challenge to the Lautenburg Act could be based on the portion of the opinion I cited in my original reply. Just because it is a federal law does not mean it is constitutional.
What the opinion is saying is that if Cruikshank were to come before the Court now, that statement about the 1st Amendment not applying to the states would be DEAD WRONG. Cruikshank has just been glued, tied and nailed to a big post dug into the ground, and the lawyer for Heller is training his 120mm main gun right between Cruikshank's eyes. IOW, the era of anyone being able to argue that the 2nd is inapplicable against states and local governments is nearly over.
“5-4 is kind of a letdown”
Not at all. I’m delighted that Justice Scalia and presumably Justices Alito, Thomas and Roberts decided on a take-no-prisoners strategy. They gave the most expansive decision they could and still get the majority vote. Sure, they might have gotten an additional vote to make it 6-3, but at what cost? Better a one vote majority than the more watered-down opinion needed to get a larger vote count that would, in the final analysis, be completely irrelevant.
The SCOTUS just handed the Second Amendment Bar a very clear win that will be used for the next decade to further expand our gun rights. The 5-4 vote is mere trivia.
Remember this is not the final act, but the ever-important first step.
Next stop, Chicago and Morton Grove!
“Time to go on the offense!!”
Amen! And we just got the ruling for the Second Amendment Bar to do exactly that.
I believe you’re referring to the Lautenberg Amendment (act):
The Lautenberg Amendment, or act is an act presented and made law in 1996 that amended the Gun Control act of 1968 by senate and the house of representatives commonly known as Section 658 0f Public Law 104-208. The Amendment is now law that persons convicted of even a misdemeanor crime of Domestic Violence, or that are the Respondant to a protective order whether temporary, or permenant, or a Restraining order may not possess firearms, or ammunitions. The Gun Control act also does not provide an exclusion for Military Personnel, Security Guards, Law Enforcement, or any other types of persons that are required by the duties of their professions to possess, carry or work with or around Firearms, Guns, Explosives, or any other types of munitions and other types of weaponry. The Act also makes it a felony for any person to provide another person with such Firearms, and ammunition or weaponry including Military Commanders, Non-Commissioned Officers, and other types of Professional Career type leadership officials such as Police Officers and also Security Guards and or National Guardsmen.We have made this website in the support of either repealing the amendment, or by amending the amendment to allow exclusions for persons whose careers have been adversely affected due to this law, as well as allow for the victims rights not to be violated in situations that may arise from the amendment, or repeal of the Lautenberg Amendment..
“I don’t have time to read this thread right now, so can someone give me a quick synopsis of the ruling and what effect it will have on all the bans?
Thanks”
Your free M16 will be shipped out by the government in the same order as the IRS stimulus checks starting Monday.
;)
We're only guaranteed the freedoms and liberties we're willing to fight and die for.
“NRA just announced on the steps of the Supreme Court steps that they are filing suit in Chicago.”
Yeehaw! 14th Amendment incorporation comin’ right up!
This response does not help me.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would
have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to
limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate
civilian uses of weapons.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”
This idiot shouldn’t even be on the court if he is this Constitutionally illiterate.
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.