Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

*LIVE THREAD* DC vs Heller decision due at 10:00 EST (2nd Amendment)
SCOTUS Blog ^ | 6-26-08 | shameless vanity

Posted on 06/26/2008 3:55:39 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat

Today is the day.

The folks at SCOTUS blog will be providing a live blog to follow developments as quickly as possible.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: banglist; bitter; elections; heller; judiciary; scalia; scotus; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840841-860861-880 ... 1,081-1,098 next last
To: RKBA Democrat

bump


841 posted on 06/26/2008 10:49:41 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
registration is must issue instead of may issue

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.

842 posted on 06/26/2008 10:49:56 AM PDT by semantic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: Lions Gate
We have four out of control Supreme Court Justices who have no regard for the 2nd Amendment whatsoever - they are a national disgrace and should be removed from office.

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.

843 posted on 06/26/2008 10:50:51 AM PDT by houeto ("Drill Here! Drill Now!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
I’ll take the win, but 5-4 really sucks.

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.

844 posted on 06/26/2008 10:53:30 AM PDT by Ancesthntr (An ex-citizen of the Frederation dedicated to stopping the Obomination from becoming President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

Bush’s fault.


845 posted on 06/26/2008 10:55:05 AM PDT by RetSignman (DEMSM: "If you tell a big enough lie, frequently enough, it becomes the truth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DocRock

LOVE that picture. I’d love it even more on a T-shirt (all the better to give scumbag liberal gun grabbers apoplexy).


846 posted on 06/26/2008 10:55:17 AM PDT by Ancesthntr (An ex-citizen of the Frederation dedicated to stopping the Obomination from becoming President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

gonna have to post this on a few Brit forums for those who think guns in the states can be purchased like candy...


847 posted on 06/26/2008 10:57:01 AM PDT by Mac1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redbob; epow
I do believe this is a federal law, and also that there's nothing in Heller to use to challenge it.

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.

848 posted on 06/26/2008 10:58:50 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: Tarantulas
“On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.

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.

849 posted on 06/26/2008 10:59:31 AM PDT by Ancesthntr (An ex-citizen of the Frederation dedicated to stopping the Obomination from becoming President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: Domandred

“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!


850 posted on 06/26/2008 10:59:37 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: Diggler

“Time to go on the offense!!”

Amen! And we just got the ruling for the Second Amendment Bar to do exactly that.


851 posted on 06/26/2008 11:00:32 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

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..


852 posted on 06/26/2008 11:00:57 AM PDT by samson1097
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: SendShaqtoIraq

“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.

;)


853 posted on 06/26/2008 11:01:49 AM PDT by Diggler (We will be beaten with our own virtue. Proud American Infidel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 840 | View Replies]

To: All
why is everyone so happy? we were just told that the constitution was constitutional by one un-elected egotist.
We need to prepare ourselves for this to be “reviewed” and “corrected” in the near future. Right now I am almost positive that a nutbag anti-everything group in the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit are sharpening their pens.

We're only guaranteed the freedoms and liberties we're willing to fight and die for.

854 posted on 06/26/2008 11:03:37 AM PDT by newnhdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 847 | View Replies]

To: All; kevkrom
"where well-trained police forces provide personal security,"
 
Whoa - that bit of quote flies in the face of a much prior and dated SCOTUS ruling in that police had no responsibility in PERSONAL security of individuals and their property, but were officers of the court responsible for investigation and apprehension of criminals for the sake of public order - I had that citation and whole opinion at one time but misplaced it somewhere.
 

855 posted on 06/26/2008 11:06:02 AM PDT by LastDayz (Born and Raised Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: An Old Man
Thanks, Man ........................ FRegards
856 posted on 06/26/2008 11:06:47 AM PDT by gonzo ( What Part Of "Shall Not Be Infringed" does anyone have a problem with? The USSC will soon wonder ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: mware

“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!


857 posted on 06/26/2008 11:07:28 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies]

To: Diggler

This response does not help me.


858 posted on 06/26/2008 11:08:52 AM PDT by SendShaqtoIraq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

859 posted on 06/26/2008 11:11:39 AM PDT by Bush gal in LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

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.


860 posted on 06/26/2008 11:12:16 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (Been here before)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840841-860861-880 ... 1,081-1,098 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson