Skip to comments.We dodged a bullet - BIG TIME!
Posted on 06/26/2008 2:45:32 PM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
1. I too prayed. Not a common event, but last night on retiring, I realized that there was a real chance for a wrong decision, and the potential ruin of the Republic.
2. It wasn’t that close. It’s a false notion that one judge would have led to the opposite result. If Kennedy had been more anti, the opinion would have been less favorable, but a negotiated compromise. If Kennedy had been fully stubborn, then one of the 4 would have been brought in to the majority, with the decision watered down to their satisfaction. There may even have been an element of letting them have safe dissenting votes, but they might have supported a reasonable result if necessary.
3. The answer to all the “how does this affect...?” questions is the same. After generations of minimal Supreme Court activity on the gun issue, we are entering a fertile era. In the next 10-15 years, we will see numerous cases decided, and the Court will draw the lines for future gun rights and restrictions. This includes right to carry, full faith and credit, right to travel, city bans, Assault Weapon (so-called) bans, machine guns, taxes, regulations. Everything. The decision does not resolve any of them in advance, but lays a solid brick for the foundation. This is the first ever gun restriction to be overturned based on the Second Amendment, and there will probably be more. With good strategy, the next case will be an incremental one. Perhaps it will establish that the Second Amendment applies to the States. The Chicago gun ban would be good for this. California AWB has other issues (like “what is an unusually dangerous weapon”?)
4. I wonder if the dissenters are receiving extra security. A large fraction of the nation believes them to have attempted treason. One wonders if there are any unstable nuts among that group who think they need to take action.
5. Prediction: 10 years from now, Chicago bans and AWBs will be overturned. Machine guns will still be expensive, and travelers may have more rights to carry for self defense away form home.
If it comes down to weathervane Kennedy, I'll take what I can get. I happen to consider this a Divine Intervention. We need more, no doubt.
Justice Kennedy is the King of America. Whatever he says is law of the land. It’s a very sad state of affairs.
I tend to believe the notion that says he wrote it to be as aggressive as possible while still retaining the majority, purposely alienating the 4 stooges.
He could perhaps have been somewhat less absolutist, still overturned the DC ban, and maybe nabbed Souter.
I think he was purposely pushing the limit. Not that this was a perfect result, and I agree that it should have been 9-0 regardless, but I think 5-4 is a reflection of the strength of the opinion moreso than risk of finding for a collective right.
When future monumental Constitutional issues come before the Court,
We cannot afford to have one or more Obama appointees on that bench.
Just Say No to O!
There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be necessary to the security of a free state. See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessaryan argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.
3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the peoples arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights. The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution.
During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.
Now what? Four justices appointed to the highest position in our legal system just 'flunked'? Are we that infested? And what does that say about the rest of the legal system and all the players?
If the foundation of this country has been eaten away such that some of it's culprits now sit on our highest court, it's collapse is imminent. Holy cow.
It’s a good decision, but one that should NEVER have been needful. Our RIGHTS are not up for a vote by ANYONE. Since they are not GRANTED by government, they are not subject to restriction by government. Only at the LOCAL level can a city regulate where and when someone may discharge a firearm in other than an emergency situation. That’s it and that’s all. Numbers, types, etcetera, are NOT subject to ANYONE’S regulation or restriction. Ever.
As others have said: one vote away from tyranny is WAY too close for comfort.
I am so glad your file opened, now make a list in another format so you don’t go through that again.. : )
Well, call it what you want, but letting us keep guns (temporarily) while they ignore just about everything else in the Constitution is a feeble victory at best.
You do realize they (the liberals) ignore or follow precedent as it fits their agenda, right? One or more liberal justices in the mold of Ruthy and her ilk, and we’ll see this “victory” overturned.
Like I wrote earlier. It’s hardly a victory when you get to keep a right that was already yours while you lose other rights at their discretion. All in all, I’d say the SCOTUS has done more harm than good this session.
>During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.<
This same fear exists today, 220 years later.
You bet. He doesn't come on 'till after Hannity, but well worth the wait. Thanks for reminding me.
>Justice Kennedy is the King of America. Whatever he says is law of the land. Its a very sad state of affairs.<
If the law of the land is not enforced by the Executive Branch, there is no law. Which do you prefer?
Sgt_Schultze: “Justice Kennedy is the King of America. Whatever he says is law of the land. Its a very sad state of affairs.”
Yes, it is. Our lords and masters stopped short of nullifying the 2nd Amendment. How nice of Kennedy to let us keep our guns...for now.
After Nine's Gun Ruling, N.Y.'s Gun Laws May Be Next I just heard on the news a suit is being brought against Chicago.
2. Can one buy a pistol for home defense in any state (New York?) without a permit. Presently one has to go before a local judge and pay a whopping fee?
I beleve you have the punctuation reversed. Except for New York City, I believe you can buy a handgun in any state for home defense without needing a license for simple possession, except places like Chicago where handguns are prohibited - except for the privileged elite. In states that still have "may issue" concealed carry privileges, you have to pay for the privilege, and it can be denied by magistrates and law enforcement authorities. About 40 states are "shall issue" concealed carry states as long as you don't fulfill disqualifying criteria.
courtesy of jdege
3. Once you have a pistol, where can one go to target practice with it? In your basement?
Maybe, I believe it depends on zoning laws. They have cheap ways to practice using just primers, with no powder in the cartridges, IIRC. There are ranges all over the place. There's one at 20 West 20th Street, NYC. Seek and you shall find.
4. Can one have more than one pistol for self defense? Can one have a pistol for the wife.?
However today you are called paranoid.
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.