A Gutless Supreme Court Decision (USSC and Gun Cases)

Frontpage Magazine ^ | June 18, 2002 | Tanya Metaksa

[RogueIsland]

For your consideration.

[RogueIsland]

bang

[Lazamataz]

Tanya, we have a Gutless congress. A gutless Supreme Court. A gutless Senate. A gutless President.

Because -- let's face it -- excepting a few Freepers -- we have a gutless Population.

[Common Tator]

"Today's Supreme Court action is a victory for public safety and security and a defeat for the National Rifle Association and gun criminals, who have been chomping at the bit for the Supreme Court to overrule its own precedent on the Second Amendment.

The Bush administration asked that this case NOT Be taken because it would be lost. Kennedy and O'Conner would go against the 2nd amenmdent giving the anti gun people a huge 6/3 victory.

I can't believe the fools who think that if they can just get a case before the court, it will rule as they like. It would almost certainly reduce the 2nd amendment to nothing.

First. Get Justices on the court who will up hold the 2nd Amendment.

Secondly. Bring a case to get the 2nd amendment upheld.

As usual lots of idiots have it backwards.

[pgobrien]

More dissembling from the vertabrae challenged Members of the High Court.

[RogueIsland]

The Bush administration asked that this case NOT Be taken because it would be lost.

That's kind of my take on it, but I do wish the court would strike that infernal Lautenberg Amendment. It's like leaving Jim Crow laws on the books.

[AAABEST]

The term "watch what they do, not what they say" comes to mind. The "compassionate conservative" position seems to be:

"We believe the 2nd amendment is an individual right but your individual right exists only to the point we say it does." He specifically argued that the Lautenberg amendment was constitutional.

That is exactly what Ted "Lautenberg amendment supporter" Olson argued before this court. "Make no mistake about it" that's exactly what he argued.

They can take all of their "individual right" arguments and stuff them in their phoney asses, as they could give 2 craps about anyone's "individual right".

[Knitebane]

I regularly use the 2nd Amendment as a pseudo-litmus test when I vote.

I voted for GWB due to his pre-election pro-2nd Amendment stance, just like I voted for his dad in '88.

And just like with his dad, his anti-2nd Amendment activities once in office will cost him my vote next time.

Dubya better figure out what his dad didn't. Five or six million gun owners will either stay home or vote for a third party rather than him if he ignores their rights.

I did, most of my friends did, and I'll do it again. I simply won't hold my nose and vote for someone who trashes the 2nd Amendment, no matter what party he represents.

[ez]

The long dark night continues...

[RogueIsland]

Honestly, it's hard to know what to think with this bunch, AAABEST. There's so many conflicting messages out of this administration on guns that until I see concrete action one way or the other, I can't tell what's lying for tactics/pandering sake and what they really think on the subject. Everything I've seen so far can be "interpreted" either as gutless captitulation or savvy maneuvering. Either way, "untruths" are involved. Gets me irritable, to be honest.

[PaImettoHawk]

Well, for one thing, I am a Constitutionalist......AND the Constitution is NOT a "living, breathing document". Reguardless of any Supreme Court Justice in place....If there is any threat of the infringement of individual rights..It must be faced "Head On" by any President in place. Simply burying one's head in the sand like an ostrich dos not make something go away.....it must be faced. My President (who I voted for), has let me down bad on this one.

[ez]

Dubya better figure out what his dad didn't. Five or six million gun owners will either stay home or vote for a third party rather than him if he ignores their rights.

No kidding...Pataki lost my vote, and W. is dangerously close...

[McGavin999]

As usual lots of idiots have it backwards.

But, you're asking them to think. They can't do that right now, they're too busy bashing President Bush.

[chaosagent]

Dubya better figure out what his dad didn't. Five or six million gun owners will either stay home or vote for a third party rather than him if he ignores their rights.

And these people think that the Democrats are going to treat their rights any better?

These people need to understand that by "sending a message" like this, they might as well just go ahead and vote Democratic.

[pabianice]

Dubya better figure out what his dad didn't. Five or six million gun owners will either stay home or vote for a third party rather than him if he ignores their rights.

Great strategy. It hands the election to the gun-grabbers.

[tpaine]

Common Tator:
The Bush administration asked that this case NOT Be taken because it would be lost.

---

That's kind of my take on it, but I do wish the court would strike that infernal Lautenberg Amendment. It's like leaving Jim Crow laws on the books. -RI

---

The Bush administration is playing a political game with our RKBA's.

As the article says, this issue is a hot potato, and if the USSC had 'incorporated' the 2nd at this time, - Bush could have paid the price at the polls, & maybe even lost a second term over the flap.

- So they played it 'safe'.

- Many legal scholars, and students of this particular USSC, -- were of the opinion that the Emerson case could have won, an were saying so just a few weeks ago, when the Ashcroft decision was first announced.
They wondered why Bush opposed the the USSC review. -- It made no sense, - except politically.

[PaImettoHawk]

Call it "irrational" if you like, however.....how does a Republican President pass "liberal agenda" with ease? ...When a Dem was in the seat, at least even the phony Republicans in Congress stood up against liberal policies. I have yet to figure out any logic behind this madness...anyone have any ideas?

[Knitebane]

And these people think that the Democrats are going to treat their rights any better?

These people need to understand that by "sending a message" like this, they might as well just go ahead and vote Democratic.

No, a Democrat in the office will be no better. But we know a Democrat will be gunning for the 2nd Amendment and the gun rights people will be watching him like a hawk. Under a Republican president, people get complacent.

And if a Republican president is going to sell us down the river too, why vote for either of them?

Sure, there's education policy, foreign policy, abortion, and a bunch of other things to worry about. But none of them matter if the people of the US have no ability to resist.

Once the 2nd Amendment is gone, nothing else will matter because you won't have any leverage at all over the government.

[PaImettoHawk]

Good Points

[Pistias]

The Lautenberg amendment, passed in 1994, turned domestic misdemeanor offenses into the equivalent of a federal felony, thus denying anyone, who had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense such as a threatening a spouse, of ever owning a firearm. It even made the offense retroactive. Anyone who had ever pleaded guilty to such a misdemeanor became unable to own or use a firearm in his/her occupation.

"The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: ``To bereave a man of life...or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.''
Hamilton, Federalist 84