Posted on 06/26/2008 3:55:39 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat
LOL. Now there is a government program I could really get behind!
Your post #900 should be required reading.
Welcome aboard.
No, it is Ginsburg with a U.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/102987g.htm
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/content/VL+-+Judges+-+DHG
http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/adjunct/ginsburg_douglas
“IMO, we need to rally around “our” Conservative Institutions and sort out who is who amongst us, right now we are scattered and ineffective IMO, to many lobbies with their own agenda.”
You’re right. I think what we should be looking at are the organizations that are effective in moving the conservative ball forward.
At first blush, that would appear to largely exclude the GOP. But as this case indicates, there are plenty of effective organizations out there. We gunnies have some great models to draw from at the state and Federal level. Conservatives with other focuses should consider emulating these models.
Can you imagine how effective an anti-tax group with the tenacity of Gun Owners of America would be?
“Even the gun control advocates seemed to have missed this. Poll taxes are illegal. Any tax on a ‘right’ makes it into a privilige. Any ‘capricious’ non granting of a permit is also automatically demolished in this opinion.”
Yup. Some of the “bad” news of this decision is that licensing was not demolished by it. But it might as well have been. Because in the long run, the government won’t be able to charge for the licenses. Given the choice between granting free licenses and simply not bothering to license, in most cases I expect the latter to prevail.
LOL
An excellent summary of what happened.
Let me add, there is no definition of “arms”. Courts will have to answer that question, especialy with regard to the recent .50 cal bans in California.
Where is the line on what is an “arm” and what is not? Do we use ATF definitions that could leave anything larger than .50 cal as a “destructive device”, not an “arm”.
What Scalia gave us is a future of battles defining our “right”.
That’s right. My mistake. Note to self. Do not post when 1/2 asleep.
No, this just became on par with voting rights. Sure you have to send in a car "I live here and vote here". No taxes no registration fees or anything like that. It is a fundamental right.
I would actually like to see Douglas Ginsburg get nominated again. He is incredibly qualified, he’s still fairly young (early 60s) and the marijuana use from forty years ago wouldn’t even get brought up.
We never have and never will get a decision out of the courts that is so broad in it’s scope as to fully restore our gun rights in one fell swoop. What this decision did was two very important things:
(1) Confirm that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a right is an individual right separate from any militia qualification.
(2) Give us a judgement from which to build future cases upon.
The practical implication as of this moment is that simply the most egregrious law in the country in DC has been stricken on a Second Amendment basis. Citizens living in DC had zero gun rights a week ago. They now have some.
What you seem to forget is that there is a political dimension to gun rights. The fact that you can carry a concealed firearm in Alaska without a license is a reflection of a political decision. Now that this court case has come about, the Alaska state legislature is not going to go back and say “well gee, this decision allows us to restrict the right to carry so we’re going to do that.” Their law will remain unchanged because politically speaking, the people in Alaska like their law just fine. There is also the issue of state Constitutions which are often far more explicit in their protection of gun rights than the Federal Constitution is.
You are correct in noting that the anti’s will selectively use portions of this case to try to justify gun restrictions. Then again, they would also seek to use the fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west as justification for gun restrictions. They’re gun grabbers and that’s just what gun grabbers do.
In states like New Jersey, there are already widespread restrictions on carry. This ruling will eventually force that state to justify those restrictions against a judicial standard, which is something they did not have to do previously. We will probably never have as expansive a set a gun rights in New Jersey as we will in Alaska or Arizona or Idaho or Virginia. But folks in New Jersey will at least have a baseline set of gun rights.
“I am utterly dismayed that something so readily apparent…so basic in principle and logic…so fundamental in our basic rights…has so narrow of an affirmation by the highest court in the land. Folks, my apprehensions about the direction of this country have never been more profound. I will take the good news, but I will not feel any ease whatsoever.”
I’m actually quite tickled at the ruling. My fear all along has been that the Court would take the collectivist interpretation. That’s why I’ve never been a fan of suing for our gun rights. I’m happy to be shown at least partly wrong.
This went very well considering how it could have gone. We never will get a single Court ruling that is going to widely expand our gun rights. But this opens up a new front for us. We now have a Court ruling that can be used to expand our rights further. That does not negate what we’ve always done: fight for our gun rights in the legislatures.
I view this as being analagous to free speech rights in the 1920’s. During that time period, you had little right as a practical matter to engage in controversial speech that would now be considered routine. It’ll take time, but 10 or 20 years from now, we will likely be in a much better position than we are now with regard to our gun rights.
“Am I the only one bothered by the fact that it was only a 5-4 vote.”
No, you’re not. But in my opinion, Justice Scalia made the right move in getting as strong an opinion he could with a minimal majority. He might have gotten another vote by further watering down his opinion. But why do that? 5-4 is as much a win as 9-0.
She did not come across as knowledgeable on anything.
“I can just visualize future lower courts quoting this part specifically to uphold “reasonable” restrictions as the gun grabbers/socialists/liberals play the salami game by taking away little tiny pieces at a time. First a “reasonable” restriction here, then one there.”
So can I. But keep in mind that the legislature has to agree to the restriction in the first place. We have managed to retain and expand our gun rights over the last 30 years in the political sphere without having a court opinion that helps us. We now have that.
I took that to mean things such as nuclear, chemical, biological, etc. A gun is neither dangerous or unusual. It can sit safely on a table for a thousand years. The same cannot be said of the former.
Excellent summary.
free dixie,sw
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.