Posted on 07/15/2009 4:39:53 PM PDT by Pyro7480
...On Wednesday, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin implied that the Supreme Courts 2008 decision to uphold the Second Amendment was revolutionary: When I was in law school...the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous....But the Supreme Court [in Heller]...said that...individuals have a personal right to bear arms.
...Anchor Wolf Blitzer raised the Second Amendment issue with Toobin, a graduate of Harvard Law School, and the others on their panel analyzing the hearings.... [and] asked...what were the nominees positions, specifically on the federal obligation to support the Second Amendment, as opposed to local communities..?
The CNN...analyst harkened back to his law school days...and possibly revealed a bit of his formation as a liberal:
TOOBIN: You know, its funny, the way that this hearing goes, you would think that Supreme Court precedent is some unchanging thing- that is just the law that is changed. But if you look at the Second Amendment, thats something thats changed dramatically over the last- for 50 years, including when I was in law school, which was more recently than 50 years ago- the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous. The text of the Second Amendment, I believe we have it- we have it in our system- you know, speaks of a well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms.
Well, courts used to say, well, this only affects the rights of state militias. But the Supreme Court, two years ago, in the famous Heller decision, said that when it comes to the federal government, we- individuals have a personal right to bear arms, and the D.C. gun control law was thus unconstitutional....
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
There are only two types of people, the thinkers, the doer’s and then there is the audience.
You think Toobin is an idiot, the Washington state supreme court claims that the correct procedure for obtaining discovery in a criminal case is to use a public records request rather than relying on the rules of criminal procedure or Brady v. Maryland; at least they did in my case. We’ll see what the U.S. Supreme court has to say about that this fall.
I would like to see a legal ignoramus like Toobin come out to Wisconsin and try to take the guns away from all the Dem gun owners and lovers I know. He would be one very sorry man. Here in Wisconsin there is no debate about the right to own a gun since there are millions of them about equally distributed on both sides of the political line. Toobin onces again demonstrates that it is possible to receive an education and not learn anything.
Hey, Toobin! How does it feel to waste all that money on a Harvard education only to discover they were teaching left wing ideology rather than law?
It’s so simple even us hayseeds can understand. It is a Bill of Rights for PEOPLE — not a Bill of Rights for militias.
Duh...
“Isn’t it just a bit irrational to hate inanimate objects? It’s sort of like hating rocks, isn’t it? “
I was thinking hammer. It is a tool but in the wrong hands can and has killed.
We need to stop being nice to them. Through their blatantly CRIMINAL actions (see Title 18 Sect 242) they are trying to enslave us.
I take a bit of offense to that notion...
If it was ONLY about militias, why was it an amendment, and not in a clause specifically about the states (specifically Article IV)?: “Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”
And they've been running about 10 million "Form 4473"background checks for firearms transfers every year since then.
Of that 10 million, some are for transfers of "used" (already existing) firearms; some are for multiple purchases of new firearms. It's also my understanding that holders of Concealed Carry permits can buy without an additional background check.
The number of firearms in private hands is probably closer to 350 million.
the way this administrunz(*) is going, they are, with help, laughably, from the MSM, eliminating the 1st, first.
(*strunz is Italian for turd)
“Bet you anything Toobin lives in a gated community”
Yes, and it reminds me of the utter irony of Ayers threatening to call the police when a conservative journalist showed up on his property to ask questions! I laughed for days at THAT one!
Yep. And those firearms aren’t going ANYWHERE.
Yes—rights are just like certain TRUTHS that are “self-evident.” To me, that means that they cannot be argued or legislated out of existence. Rather, they are the FOUNDATION for any other laws.
“Penumbras and emanations”
I vote for (d), all of the above!!!
He's a liberal & an educated jack ass. Liberals are mentally deranged & genetically deficient, as they inherently hate the U.S., Israel and anything that smacks of Christianity. Their entire world view & immoral reprobate behavior is built around this hatred.
.
He is so liberal he thinks prisons should be uni-sex.
What a great quote and entirely true!!!
.
I argued for an individual right in moot court in law school. I ended up winning in one particular round where the Con Law professor who was judging said, “Good argument, even though no court will ever find in favor of the side you were arguing.” Idiot.
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.