It would not take a democrat. There are Republicans as bad as Hillary on the gun issue.
Posted on 11/13/2007 8:01:58 AM PST by ctdonath2
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court took no action Tuesday in the case involving the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.
The justices discussed the case at their private conference on Friday, but reached no resolution.
Four justices must vote to grant an appeal. The court does not always reach a decision the first time it discusses a case.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Yeah, they want to rule on this issue about as badly as they want a case of TB. Regardless of how they rule (if they rule) they can expect to have new, related cases coming at them for the next twenty years or so.
If reaching the top of their profession is being a Supreme Court Justice, many of the seated ones would probably look longingly at a job as Traffic Court Judge about now. They’re learning what it’s like to be between a rock and a hard spot.
I believe that. I believe they struggle between intellectual honesty and the practical implications.
Doesn't the closing of the NFA registry impact the Bazooka itself though? You'd have to find one registered for legal transfer first. Pay the artificially inflated price. Then hope you can get the explosives storage cert. Then pay the transfer fees, storage insurance, and yeah... the Tax.
The closing of the NFA registry put that piece of legislation into the realm of a de facto ban. This violates a prior SCOTUS ruling on using taxing authoirty as a ban. See BAILEY v. DREXEL FURNITURE CO., 259 US 20 (1922).
The bright line is when the well-being of others is improperly at risk - at which point said others may use their RKBA to deal with the problem.
At the extreme: nukes can be reasonably presumed to be “loaded” and “pointed” at everyone within a few mile radius plus hundreds of miles downwind. Considering that most of those in range are not valid targets, they have the 2nd Amendment right to eliminate that threat pronto. Similar with other WMDs: there is really no way to store, much less use, them safely and responsibly in light of the consequences of a “negligent/accidental discharge”.
MGs, howitzers, grenades, etc. can be unloaded and/or stored and/or pointed safely. Even a 500lb bomb can be stored safely given a large enough emptied & secured area. WMDs cannot, due to range and/or wind patterns.
Roger that. Given the current political climate and the media campaign to do away with the RTKABA, the Supremes MIGHT go the wrong way.
NOT hearing the case could be a good thing.
In several recent instances Kennedy has been one of the Justices who seem to think that international law and the Hague court preempts the US Constitution. I don't have any confidence whatsoever that he will vote to uphold the DC circuit's decision.
It would not take a democrat. There are Republicans as bad as Hillary on the gun issue.
This is turning the syntax of the Amendment on it's head by a supposed "Right-leaning" news source. Not a good sign IMO...
Was it the Order List that was handed to reporters this morning? That is usually put up on the court’s website as soon as it is issued, but there is currently no Order List posted for today.
Absolutely. But then the Constitution isn't about feelings, it's about practical implications. And those that wrote it knew that eventually more blood would have to be shed to preserve it from the government it created and wanted to give their posterity the best chance to preserve the document, not the government.
No. It indicates that the future direction might be toward actually recognizing the 2nd amendment but for now it only pertains to DC. By not taking it now the Justices kick it once again down the road. I hope they take it. If we are soon to get 3 new Justices from Mrs. bill or 3 that the congress will accept from Mr. Giuliani, then it will be Certified up during the next administration and the 2nd will be pretty much repealed by the Court.
The NFA registry was closed only for machineguns made after 1986.
I have 3 new (post-’86) NFA items, two purchased (and manufactured) in the last 2 years, and the first even was legal in NY.
Thing is that the market for NFA stuff is so small (due to paperwork & tax overhead) that there just isn’t sufficient demand to offer, say, bazookas and howitzers to the general public (esp. since the military probably has contracted restrictions).
But yes, 922(o) (which is what is inaccurately oft described as “closing the NFA registry”) conflicts with _Drexel_. Should _Heller_ go our way, 922(o) will meet _Drexel_ in short order.
Yes, not to decide is to decide!
A reasonable argument I think. Unlike others who would argue, absurdly, that any weapon is covered by 2A. The point I was trying to make is that the debate over where the bright line should be drawn is legitimate. But to argue (as some of the banners do) that because you have no right to own a nuke, you have no right to own a pistol, is silly.
Oops, sorry I reposted that same link...Before I saw this post...
Well redundancy in this case might be ok...;-)
Good illustration of a “1,2,3 punt”...
The problem with most “RKBA vs. nukes” arguments is that they start with the object, garner an emotional reaction, and then try to rationalize that emotion. Instead, one must start with basic principles, then accept the conclusions those principles lead to. Unfortunately, few people understand what the basic principles are.
“Nukes aren’t covered by the 2nd Amendment” is like “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater isn’t covered by the 1st Amendment”. Yes, the respective amendments DO cover and protect those extremes - HOWEVER, one is responsible/liable for the consequences. Just because you have a right to X doesn’t mean you’re not responsible for the consequences.
IIRC, Adam Liptak of the seditious NY Times made that observation in his first story about the Parker decision. Once I read that Ginsburg and Souter agreed with Scalia and Rehnquist, I couldn't forget.
After I made the same error too many times, here's how I figured out a mnemonic to spell Ruth Bader Ginsburg's married name: Ginsburg and Souter are Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma.
We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read "bear Arms" in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: "Surely a most familiar meaning [of 'carries a firearm'] is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ('keepand bear Arms') and Black's Law Dictionary . . . indicate: 'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for"bear Arms."
One of the problems is that Scalia is still there. How can they renounce the individual right that they recognized in their Muscarello opinion now without looking foolish, at best, or dishonest?
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.