One Scared Elderly Man is About to Make the Country Safer

David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog ^ | October 2, 2009 | Claude Cartaginese

[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 19^th century, at the close of the Civil War. Since then, Judges have been reluctant to challenge those restrictions.

[diamond6]

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

yecchhh

[JRandomFreeper]

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

[Cheetahcat]

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

[DaiHuy]

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)

[freeangel]

“...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.

[Enterprise]

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.

[Gilbo_3]

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'...

[Enterprise]

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.

[sergeantdave]

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

[KrisKrinkle]

“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.

[teeman8r]

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

teeman8r

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

[sergeantdave]

“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.

[MarkL]

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

[Enterprise]

"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.

[Gilbo_3]

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

heheheh, anybody need a new tagline ???

[the crow]

I’ll take it. Thanks for the nudge.

HT Enterprise. well said.

[the crow]

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?

[Gilbo_3]

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

[the crow]

ah so. Thanks Gilbo.

[Gilbo_3]

my pleasure...

[ctdonath2]

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.

[wastedyears]

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.

[wastedyears]

Taken with credit

[Enterprise]

I like your tagline! :^)

[wastedyears]

Thank you for thinking it up. :)