Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

One Scared Elderly Man is About to Make the Country Safer
David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog ^ | October 2, 2009 | Claude Cartaginese

Posted on 10/03/2009 1:25:08 PM PDT by HorowitzianConservative

Does the Second Amendment give one the right to keep and bear arms (even allowing one to invoke that right against the government itself), or is it a freedom only as it concerns the federal government?

As Amy Goodman reported on her Democracy Now! program, that question will now be taken up by the United States Supreme Court, and the Court’s decision could have nationwide ramifications. Said Goodman yesterday:

The Supreme Court has decided to rule on whether state and local handgun laws violate the Second Amendment right to gun ownership, which it recognized last year, when the Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, DC. Justices will now decide whether handgun rights also extend beyond federal districts to the state and local level.
Should the Court find Chicago’s gun ban unconstitutional, the decision will not only allow residents of that city to keep guns in their homes for personal protection, it will also open the door to challenge similar gun bans nationwide.

In last year’s Washington DC ruling, the Court affirmed that the Second Amendment prevailed over DC’s ban on handguns, but because the capital is a federal enclave, the decision did not extend to other bans in the rest of the country. Many of those various state and city laws banning guns were imposed in the 19th century, at the close of the Civil War. Since then, Judges have been reluctant to challenge those restrictions.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; bloggersandpersonal; gunrights; heller; lawsuit; scotus

1 posted on 10/03/2009 1:25:08 PM PDT by HorowitzianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HorowitzianConservative

Democracy Now.........can we say left wing marxist news program.

yecchhh


2 posted on 10/03/2009 1:27:52 PM PDT by diamond6 (Is SIDS preventable? www.Stopsidsnow.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HorowitzianConservative
Many of those various state and city laws banning guns were imposed in the 19th century, at the close of the Civil War

To keep free blacks from arming themselves. Unconstitutional then, unconstitutional now.

/johnny

3 posted on 10/03/2009 1:29:16 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (God Bless us all, each, and every one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HorowitzianConservative

No problem I will dust off my Boy Mechanics Book and build a 500# Crossbow.


4 posted on 10/03/2009 1:29:51 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HorowitzianConservative

Well since the new “just-us” Sotomayor is now firmly ensconced on the bench, after her “I’ll abide by the Constitution” statement, it will be interesting to see how she rules on the matter.

Any guesses? (rhetorical question)


5 posted on 10/03/2009 1:36:58 PM PDT by DaiHuy (One Big Assed Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaiHuy

“...it will be interesting to see how she rules on the matter”

Somehow, I believe her “social justice” will be to only let the criminals have guns so that they may redistribute the wealth themselves.


6 posted on 10/03/2009 2:21:19 PM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HorowitzianConservative
Here is a conundrum facing the anti-gun crowd, but I don't think they see it yet. If the Feds rule that the 2nd Amendment only applies to Federal property, what will the USOC rule when the BATF challenges Montana in court regarding Montana's law that firearms made and sold within the boundaries of Montana are exempt from Federal law? If the USOC ultimately rules that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Feds, then there will be a real free for all in the states between anti-gunners and pro-gunners. There will be some states where almost anything goes, and some states where the citizens will be totally disarmed.

Surely, even stupid Sonya can see the problems it will create if the 2nd Amendment is only applied to Federal lands and not to State jurisdictions.

7 posted on 10/03/2009 2:34:16 PM PDT by Enterprise (When they come for your guns and ammo, give them the ammo first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise; hiredhand; NFHale; Squantos
heres my take...Hellar set the stage, now with the 10A challenges comin down the pike you simply run 2A incorporation and turn down the heat...

the precedent for 'common sense' laws at the fed level is well established already, therefore, simply declare what is 'allowed' coast to coast in a pre-emptive fed code and the word 'infringement' has been neatly redefined to cover everybody...

then its 'game on'...

8 posted on 10/03/2009 2:44:10 PM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force... Like fire, a dangerous servant & master. GW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3

I can’t help but agree. The Supremes must be having thoughts of the 10th Amendment about now, considering the number of States which have started asserting it.


9 posted on 10/03/2009 2:51:25 PM PDT by Enterprise (When they come for your guns and ammo, give them the ammo first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HorowitzianConservative

Doesn’t matter what the SC says, or congress or Chucky (Seig Heil!!) Schumer. If they rule against the 2nd, let them enforce it.


10 posted on 10/03/2009 4:09:18 PM PDT by sergeantdave (obuma is the anti-Lincoln, trying to re-establish slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

“If they rule against the 2nd, let them enforce it.”

They (a different they from the USSC) do that now in Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, California and other places.


11 posted on 10/03/2009 4:18:13 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HorowitzianConservative

anarchy is preferred over tyranny... freedom over enslavement... viva the second amendment.

teeman8r

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdzspfkujHQ


12 posted on 10/03/2009 4:29:13 PM PDT by teeman8r (i liked GWB... really, i did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

“They (a different they from the USSC) do that now in Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, California and other places.”

Well, the liberals who vote for these fascists seem happy about 2nd restrictions, right? Let them enjoy their chains. The reality is different in other states.


13 posted on 10/03/2009 5:00:41 PM PDT by sergeantdave (obuma is the anti-Lincoln, trying to re-establish slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DaiHuy
I believe that the "wise latina" has stated publicly that she doesn't believe that one has a constitutional right to protect oneself, period. I seem to recall reading that she either stated or ruled that self defense is not a constitutional right.

Mark

14 posted on 10/03/2009 5:47:43 PM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
"I seem to recall reading that she either stated or ruled that self defense is not a constitutional right."

Sounds good to me. If I don't have a right to play defense, then I'll go on offense.

15 posted on 10/03/2009 6:32:09 PM PDT by Enterprise (When they come for your guns and ammo, give them the ammo first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise; hiredhand; NFHale; Squantos
If I don't have a right to play defense, then I'll go on offense

heheheh, anybody need a new tagline ???

16 posted on 10/03/2009 7:52:02 PM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force... Like fire, a dangerous servant & master. GW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3

I’ll take it. Thanks for the nudge.

HT Enterprise. well said.


17 posted on 10/03/2009 9:02:54 PM PDT by the crow (typical and bitter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3

it appears I will need a little hint on how to change my tagline. it has been a year, and I forgot.

went to me profile page, and I could not find it.

any help?


18 posted on 10/03/2009 9:09:34 PM PDT by the crow (typical and bitter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: the crow

when you reply, simply paste the new tag into the box below where it says ‘tagline’...8^P...


19 posted on 10/03/2009 9:14:37 PM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force... Like fire, a dangerous servant & master. GW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3

ah so. Thanks Gilbo.


20 posted on 10/03/2009 9:18:33 PM PDT by the crow (If I don't have a right to play defense, then I'll go on offense. - Enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: the crow

my pleasure...


21 posted on 10/03/2009 10:23:17 PM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force... Like fire, a dangerous servant & master. GW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HorowitzianConservative

Somehow methinks SCOTUS (at least the RKBA-hostile judges) will find themselves between a rock and hard place on this one.

- Rule for incorporation, and see major fallout as Chicago, NY, etc. all lose their precious gun control laws; you’re familiar with this issue.

- Rule against incorporation, and see the 2ndA shine an extremely bright spotlight upon federal gun control laws as the totality of the enumerated right becomes concentrated; “shall not be infringed” becomes an unavoidable imperative having nothing else to dilute it, taking out 922(o) and NFA first and soon voiding a host of other national laws per “you don’t have the power to enact such restrictions”.

Painted into a corner.


22 posted on 10/05/2009 4:16:17 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (Mr. Obama, I will not join your plantation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HorowitzianConservative
Many of those various state and city laws banning guns were imposed in the 19th century, at the close of the Civil War. Since then, Judges have been reluctant to challenge those restrictions.

I'm absolutely dumbstruck.

23 posted on 10/05/2009 7:24:12 AM PDT by wastedyears (The best aid we could ever give Africa would be thousands of rifles to throw out their own dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise; Gilbo_3

Taken with credit


24 posted on 10/05/2009 7:39:50 AM PDT by wastedyears (If I don't have a right to play defense, then I'll go on offense. - FReeper Enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

I like your tagline! :^)


25 posted on 10/05/2009 7:46:27 AM PDT by Enterprise (When they come for your guns and ammo, give them the ammo first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Thank you for thinking it up. :)


26 posted on 10/05/2009 7:58:41 AM PDT by wastedyears (If I don't have a right to play defense, then I'll go on offense. - FReeper Enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson