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
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.
dcwusmc: “Our RIGHTS are not up for a vote by ANYONE.”
I see at least a few other FReepers recognize this for what it was. We literally came within one vote of losing a clearly defined right, one that isn’t theirs to decide in the first place. This 5-4 decision shows how close we literally teeter on the edge of absolute tyranny. Yes, that’s exactly what it is when five justices can write or rewrite our contract, the US Constitution, as they see fit.
I wonder just what Kennedy was thinking.
Sometimes you just have to take what you can get. The rest will fall in later.
Does it matter at this point? This is a huge turn around. We are making progress. Don't spit at it.
I didn't. I said prayers in thanksgiving. I believe you have me mixed up with someone else.
Considering what liberal asshats they were, it didn't surprise me. What blew me away was that Anthony Kennedy doesn't consider child rape to be that big a deal.
On the contrary; read the minority opinion. In an attempt to refute the "People" (same phrase used in the the first and second amendment) argument, he asserts that First amendment rights (such as the right to petition government) are collective as well. He is clearly a villain.
Fortunately, it is now an established fact of American constitutional law that "JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong".
Some cop lady was on TV this evening saying that DC residents could bring their “legal” firearms to the police department and register it. Who decides what is legal and who decides DC gets to keep a list of who has what firearm? Do the law abiding citizens of DC really have to report to the PD so some flunkie can write down a serial number next to their name and address?
Thanks for the ping!
LOL! I have no idea, but the DA for DC was on the "News Hour" on PBS tonight saying in effect that they were going to ban all semi-autos when they draft the new ordinance.
What I was trying to say, and perhaps you misunderstood, If Justice Kennedy voted the correct way don't question it. Thank God for it.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and one reason for that is the need for militias. (a clearer wording) Thanks neverdem.
Its not that Justice Scalia "failed to recognize" the right outside the home, but that the right outside the home wasn't even the issue in front of the Court at this time. For him to go beyond what was at issue in this particular case would have been the same kind of judicial activism which we decry from the other side.
In the decision of the Court the issues which were squarely in front of the Court, as part of the case at hand, it was a solid, convincing win. On other issues which were not part of Heller at all, Jutice Scalia's language is quite encouraging as to future rulings on those issues which Heller did not, and rightly, could not broach at this time...
Semiautomatic handguns are in "common use" throughout the nation, so that won't survive a second under the clear language of Heller. They'll find themselves, once again, in court on a losing proposition, should they be so rash...
Even in the shall issue states, you have to pay. Both for the license itself, and often for a "training" and "certification" course as well. Part of that course, or even most of it, will be on all the various infringements that go along with that "permit"/"license". The very words "permit" and "license" are incompatible with "shall not be infringed".
And it's not true that you can buy a handgun in any state without a state issued permit. In fact if you consider the instant background check as a very mild form of "permit" you can't do it in any state. In many states you must have a Firearms Owners Identification, to purchase a handgun, and sometimes to purchase any firearm at all. To get the FOID, you have apply to the state police or local sheriff. Some places you pay a "fee" for the privilege, in other places you don't.
That won't stop them. It's not like it's their money they are spending.
Funny we haven't heard from the Solicitor General or the BATFE. (The latter may be too busy raiding and seizing the full auto weapons of a local sheriff)
Corrections are always appreciated. Thank you!
In the Washington Post story of today, is this statement, “But the majority declined to set a level of scrutiny by which judges should evaluate the constitutionality of gun restrictions that governments may set.” This shows that the battle is still not over and if the liberals win the election they will nominate more liberal justices and gut this ruling of today, because the main battle is going to be in the court’s opinion of the level of scruting the courts (federal and state) must take of any law or bureaucratic ruling that seeks to restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms.
In other words, will a future Supreme Court case decide that 2nd Amendment cases should be decided based on the basis of (1) a “strict scrutiny,” meaning any government attempt to restrict individual rights in this area is automatically to be held inherently suspect annd unconstitutional unless something like grave national security is at stake or laws and regulations that discriminate on the basis of race or spoken free speech; (2) or an “intermediate scrutiny” meaning any government attempt to restrict individual rights to keep and bear arms is to be held mostly suspect by the courts, with the government having to pass a high hurdle in order to restrict arms —like laws that discriminate on the basis of gender or symbolic free speech; (3) or an enhanced scrutiny meaning that governments have to face much less scrutiny and suspicion from the courts as they pass laws and regulations that restrict the right to keep and bear arms —like laws that discriminate on the basis of age or commercial free speech.
“We the People” won half a loaf—recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms, but not the other half, which is the level of scrutiny by the courts over any attempt to restrict that individual right. Obviously, it should be a “strict scrutiny.” but if the liberals prevail in the presidency, Congress and eventually in the courts, they may set an individual level of scrutiny or even an enhanced level of scrutiny, thus allowing more and more restrictions by federal, state and local governments on the individual right to keep and bear arms.
5-4 is waaaaaay too close. I do not find comfort that 4 black roded tyrants tried to undo the Republic. But for the weekend I will celebrate our victory. God bless America!
If McCain runs on this premise, he has my vote. Hands down. Even with all his other warts.
I disagree. He went to great lengths to accurately define the 2nd Amendment but when he got to the “shall not be infringed” part, he failed utterly by basically declaring that everything but an outright ban does not constitute infringement.
Bump for an outstanding post!
Unless McCain has coattails (or Obamamesiah has coat-tails in reverse when he's rejected in Nov.), it won't matter who he nominates for the SCOTUS, the 'RAT _majority_ in Congress will stack the court with whomever they want. They won't even allow a strict constructionst to come to the floor for a vote.
And even if McCain vetos the bills they send him, they will have the numbers to override his vetos.
There is no better reason to vote a straight Republican ticket in the fall even if we have to risk voting for a RINO and rejecting a "conservative" DemocRAT who may be running against him.
We have the chance to keep the RINO in line, but we would have _no chance_ to influence a "conservative" 'RAT, who will be FORCED to vote the way Pelosi and Reid tell him/her to vote.
Those who voted for "conservative" 'RATS in 2006 got what they inadvertantly asked for. They were voting for Pelosi and Reid in reality.
Have these numbnutz learned anything yet?
I hope so, because the '08 election will be one of the most important elections in the history of America. It will determine whether or not we are going to allow the 60's radicals to take complete control of America as they have already taken complete control of the 'RAT party.
5 JUSTICE STEVENS is of course correct, post, at 10, that the right to assemble cannot be exercised alone, but it is still an individual right, and not one conditioned upon membership in some defined assembly, as he contends the right to bear arms is conditioned upon membership in a defined militia. And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is primarily collective in nature. Ibid. See McDonald v. Smith, 472 U. S. 479, 482484 (1985) (describing historical origins of right to petition).
There is plenty in the Heller ruling, and in other rulings from past cases about 1st, 4th ,5th, etc... Rights that we can use in other Cases to get incorporation, over turn licensing requirements, and quite possibly the '34 NFA/'68 GCA/'86 FOPA crap.
If the title isn't the understatement of the day, please show it to me.
Well, you're right, of course. But it may also be just as true to say that they're the ones who dodged the bullet. Or at least delayed it a bit.
We shall see.
If McCain runs on this premise, he has my vote. Hands down. Even with all his other warts.
More precisely, if I believed that McCain would appoint Supreme Court Justice nominees who would defend the Constitution, he'd have my vote. But to date, I do not see that this is the case, and it appears more likely that McCain would back the globalist move instead.
You made a very interesting point. Here are the comments from the decision about scrutiny that I could find using the "edit" function of my browser.
As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of ones home and family, 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.
Justice Breyer moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering interest-balancing inquiry that asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statutes salutary effects upon other important governmental interests. Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED(Latin for "which was to be proved." Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Copyright 1964)
This is a very important point, especially for the lawyers. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I goof, tell me about it. I'm just an old student, willing to learn. IMHO, Scalia is saying the right of self defense trumps any level of scrutiny that you want to apply. Therefore, this is strict scrutiny. Scalia is smart enough not to rub their noses in it.
See comment# 89. With all of the other hubbub, I think we got strict scrutiny yesterday, but it was just applied to the D.C. laws in question.
You are right about the level of scrutiny being important. But Scalia expressly refrains from setting one. He refers at one point to the fact that regulation may not be arbitrary and capricious. That's a pretty low standard in and of itself. But he did not set the standard, he said the DC gun ban did not pass any available standard. I suspect not setting a strict scrutiny standard was the price of Kennedy joining the majority opinion.
Under "strict scrutiny", almost no legislation would pass muster. Under Kennedy's, every gun-grabbing legislation would be constitutional.
So the scrutiny level is a victory we still have to win.
The other victory we have to win is to get the amendment applied to the states, the way the rest of the bill of rights has been applied as against the states. As it stands now, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with a gun-grabbing piece of legislation passed by the CA legislature. It only applies to D.C. and to federal control of firearms. The wording of the amendment is "the rights of the people shall not be infringed" not "Congress shall make no law . . . " as in the first amendment. So the second amendment seems to me to explicitly cover action by States without resorting to the 14th amendment incorporation doctrine.
“Under Kennedy’s, every gun-grabbing legislation would be constitutional.” should be:
“Under Stevens’, every gun-grabbing legislation would be constitutional.”
Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of ones home and family, 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.
By using any, that means all. That means strict scrutiny is included.
I think you mean either Bryer's or Souter's. Kennedy didn't write a concurrence. Bryer was the one who wanted the "balancing" by judges on a case by case basis.
He's already ignored the Constitution. McCain Fiengold is an obvious violation of the first Amendment's "Congress shall make no law ... abridging freed of speech, or of the press".
Agreed. I’ve pointed out his obvious flaws to many. However, unless Barr or Baldwin really start making some waves here pretty quick, the GOP Cheerleaders will probably end up screwing us again...
From the last link:
The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution.
The strict scrutiny standard is one of three employed by the courts in reviewing laws and government policies. The rational basis test is the lowest form of judicial scrutiny. It is used in cases where a plaintiff alleges that the legislature has made an Arbitrary or irrational decision. When employed, the Rational Basis Test usually results in a court upholding the constitutionality of the law, because the test gives great deference to the legislative branch. The heightened scrutiny test is used in cases involving matters of discrimination based on sex. As articulated in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1976), “classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.”
Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny.
Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional. The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.
Since the second amendment is now “officially” an individual right protected by the Constitution. It would seem that strict scrutiny is the only appropriate standard.
I think that statement meant that the DC laws would fail even the lowest level of scrutiny, let alone strict scrutiny. Of course their is one key phrase in there:
any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights
Does anyone know of any other enumerated constitutional right that is not subject to strict scrutiny? I can't think of any. Hmm.
Since I got no challenge from you, it seems you agree with me. We got strict scrutiny with Heller. Hallelujah! I’m still stunned by Ginsburg and Souter’s retreat from Muscarello. Thanks for the links.