New D.C. gun laws upheld

SCOTUSblog ^ | 26 March, 2010 | Lyle Denniston

[William Tell]

SWAMPSNIPER said: "Why can’t SCOTUS come up with a tamper proof decision for a change? "

I maintained right after the Heller decision that the Court did a better job than most people were recognizing.

Here is an excerpt from the decision:
"By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen."

The Supreme Court Justices are not stupid people. They don't use a key word like "fundamental" while referring to a right of the people by accident.

And it would certainly be nonsense to claim that the Second Amendment somehow transformed a fundamental right into something that was less than fundamental.

Urbina was very wrong in his decision.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Sure he is wrong but it will cost big bucks and a lot of time to prove it. If you read the correspondence from the founders there isn’t any doubt what they meant by the 2nd amendment. It shouldn’t take a process by SCOTUS to make the meaning clear in the first place, but when they make a decision they should engrave it in granite!

[William Tell]

SWAMPSNIPER said: "... but when they make a decision they should engrave it in granite!"

I share your frustration with the process. But I think that you would take the opposite tack if the decision had gone against us. Then, I think, you would support having the Court make the narrowest possible ruling given the facts of the case, and leave it to later Courts to expand as necessary for the newer cases.

From an historical perspective the combination of the Heller case and the McDonald case is about as fast as I could possibly imagine this process going. If not for the possibility of Kennedy continuing to support the right to keep and bear arms, I would be in favor of the Supreme Court doing nothing. It's not yet bad enough to kill a million Americans in a civil war. At least not over gun rights.

[zeugma]

I believe this falls directly in line with what I said after reading Heller. Basically that the 2nd amendment is a right recognised by the Constitution, but it doesn’t really mean anything because the government can do whatever the hell it likes. We’ll see if the supreme court will slap them down again, orif the Consitution actually means anything.

[SmithL]

Urbina, Ricardo M.

Born 1946 in New York, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Nominated by William J. Clinton on March 22, 1994, to a seat vacated by Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on June 15, 1994, and received commission on June 16, 1994.

Education:
Georgetown University, B.A., 1967
Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1970

Professional Career:
Staff attorney, D.C. Public Defender Service, 1970-1972
Private practice, Washington, DC, 1972-1974
Professor & director, Criminal Justice Program, Howard University School of Law, 1974-81
Associate judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 1981-1994

Race or Ethnicity: Hispanic

Gender: Male

[stevie_d_64]

Apparently they have not gotten the idea...

And there are not enough people in D.C. to call their bluff (BS)...

It is apparent as well, that a Supreme Court ruling falls on deaf ears in D.C.

So the peoples voice in unheard, The inalienable, moral, and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is apparently not recognized by a “faction” of people who do not respect, nor is it fully understood by those that should understand it, and therefore leave it alone...

Seems to me it needs to now be explained in a more direct manner, now that the voice of the people is being ignored...

[stevie_d_64]

I would not say it is a fundamental right...

A fundamental right, by definition, would mean it is open for interpretation...(i.e.: elected government)

What the Second Amendment right really is is an “inalienable” right, meaning it is a “moral” right that is afforded by an authority higher than ANY government instituted among men...

One that is simply a right that is not open for interpretation, it is one that needs to be accepted by everyone, regardless if they choose to exercise this right, or not...

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Fundamental, to me, means vital to existence, like air, food and water!

[stevie_d_64]

Very true...But the Second Amendment being “vital” to you, it is not to others, that (they) obviously do not believe you and I should be afforded this right...

So you and I, and many others who understand the issue, it is also bolstered (supported) by the moral and inheirancy of the authority that was recognized by a virtuous group of men who penned it...

Look at it this way, it is an issue that needs to be understood (or not), but regardless, it is one that needs to be left alone for free men and women to exercise at their discretion...