*LIVE THREAD* DC vs Heller decision due at 10:00 EST (2nd Amendment)

SCOTUS Blog ^ | 6-26-08 | shameless vanity

[DoughtyOne]

Now Johnson did take over after Kennedy, so you have that going for you. Absent that, I don’t think McCain listens to anyone except himself.

I agree that he probably wouldn't pay any attention to his VP, but I think at best he is a one term Pres. if elected. Right now I don't think he can win.

I think it might be harder for him to win a second term, than to win his first.  I do think he'll go for a second if he wins the first.  I'm sure I have noted a transition in his thoughts on this topic.  At one point he was talking one term, but I'm sure I have heard him reference a second term in recent months.  Could he get elected a second time?  It would depend on the first four years.

Obama is going to scare enough people to send McCain a lot of votes.  I have devout Democrat family members who are going to vote McCain.  We should all be proud of that.

[RebekahT]

Bush has his problems. But he promised us conservative appointment to the Supreme Court and he delivered. Complain all you want but Bush did our country a world of good by replacing O’Connor with Sam Alito.

[padre35]

Fair Tax proponents are pretty tenacious, I’m not sure how broad of a group they are in terms of membership, but they certainly are highly motivated.

[RKBA Democrat]

“Repealing most of the rest of the unconstitutional laws infringing on our RKBA may take another sixty years — one step at a time - with Chicago being the next step — thanks to Alan Gura.”

I don’t think it’s going to take 60 years. We’ll be pretty far along in about a decade, twenty years. And then we’ll be back to playing defense. But it’ll be from a position of significant strength as compared to today.

[RKBA Democrat]

“What’s more, is DC is going to drag their feet and put up procedural blocks. Think George Wallace standing at the schoolhouse door. That’s going to have to be changed. Hopefully there is an ARMY of litigators out there who are going to PUSH back when they encounter grudging compliance and noncompliance.”

Oh yeah. The leftists are nothing if they aren’t tenacious. I don’t expect a lot out of the folks in DC. It is a “workers paradise” after all and there isn’t much of a 2A constituency. But keep in mind that it borders Northern Virginia.

I think it’s safe to assume that there are a lot of Virginia gunnies dreaming litigious dreams right now.

[Gondring]

Complain all you want but Bush did our country a world of good by replacing O’Connor with Sam Alito.

But of course, that was not his preference. He and Harry Reid wanted Harriet Miers.

[takenoprisoner]

“The Bill of Rights in the Constitution does NOT grant any rights, it recognizes them as pre-existing. There is a huge difference. Pollsters are ignorant of this fact, in all likelihood.”

One has to wonder where we would be today had our Constitution not recognized them. Indeed, our rights are taken for granted Still, communities like Chicago, LA, DC amongst others have denied them. I figure were it not for our Constitution recognizing them in the beginnning, we would likely have few if any pre-existing rights rights remaining whether recognized or granted.

[stand watie]

YEP. he DID!

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

TRUE.

free dixie,sw

[Gondring]

I often wonder that myself. And I have to admit that the Anti-Federalists might have actually been right on that point...which is funny, since it's one of the few places I had thought the Anti-Federalists were wrong.

That is, perhaps if we hadn't had any rights enumerated, then there wouldn't have been such a misunderstanding that the Constitution is the limit of the government's powers and that ALL the other powers are our own.

Since people seem to ignore the 10th Amendment anyway, I suspect that the Bill of Rights was necessary and it was one of the things that has preserved our rights from even more infringement than we have.

[Gondring]

The poll is worded wrong. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution does NOT grant any rights, it recognizes them as pre-existing. There is a huge difference. Pollsters are ignorant of this fact, in all likelihood.

As are some FReepers and Supreme Court Justices... Check out the followups to this (#1027).

[RebekahT]

And every indication is that Miers, although not as legally astute as Alito, would have joined the majority. (and last time I checked, Bush DID nominate Alito after Miers withdrew her name from contention.)

[snowsislander]

Bork was/is an outright statist. I don't exaggerate much when I say that he never met a law passed by a legilature that he didn't like. I've heard him and read his writings, and this is not a pro-gun judge. Frankly, I'm not unhappy that he didn't get to the Court.

Yes, I also think that Mr. Bork would have voted with the four dissenting judges.

[Gondring]

Yes, I also think that Mr. Bork would have voted with the four dissenting judges.

That does seem to be more in line with his stated view on the militia clause.

[Charlespg]

If I could afford it

Vickers 303

1928 thompson

[stand watie]

i understand.

fwiw, i was once the proud issuee of a Thompson SMG.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

you know, i've never quite understood WHY they even bother to outlaw HEAVY water-cooled MGs for civilian ownership, inasmuch as anyone who would want one wouldn't likely use it for criminal purposes.

for example a 1907 Maxim gun weighs about 125 pounds & takes several men to even move one. (not so much HEAVY, come to think of it, as BULKY & AWKWARD.)

btw, your Vickers & Thompson are considered "curios & relics" NOW & need very little federal paperwork to lawfully possess.

free dixie,sw