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 ...
The limit on the 2nd Amendment is ... the 2nd Amendment.
You have the RKBA, so does everyone else; misuse your right, and everyone else can deal with you appropriately.
WMDs are "special" because simple possession puts everyone "in range" at risk ... at which point my prior point applies.
We've been in that holding pattern for 70 years, and its not doing us any good. Those of us who realize life is finite want to get the issue resolved and dealt with ASAP.
However, at the time of the founding, you could have your own navy.
Ever hear of the word "privateer"? It was a privately owned, armed naval vessel. The early Presidents would give them letters of marque to fight for the country.
Lets examine your scenario about the 2nd keeping the 2nd in check:
If Gates were to first build an army of 50,000 (and believe me, those in Redmond are TRUE BELIEVERS...we commonly referred to them as the "Nazi youth")...armed with tanks, artillery aircraft etc...and then was to start the development of nukes, there would be no lawful path by which to stop him. In fact, there would be no lawful means by which to ascertain what he's doing with that nuclear reactor.
Your suggestion is that people band together (whether govt is proxy or not) and make war with the guy to stop him.
Do I understand you correctly?
Your post is self-contradictory.
If Bill Gates can find companies willing to sell him Uranium, and if he can find a county willing to let him site an enrichment plant in it, what is there to stop him from fulfilling such a plan? I think those would be his biggest obstacles, not a weapons ban. He could certainly create the machine tool companies to build the equipment for the plant without having to worry about sourcing centrifuges and the like, and hire the scientists to run it. As to a private army, there are clearly no restrictions on the fielding of armed security forces to protect private property.
I’ll trust ya on that yet I was sure I read my version here at FR.........I’d have bet (lost) a cold beer on that !
oh well my bad.....:o)
Stay safe !!
I predict they will NOT take the case and the lower court case will stand. The Supremes do not want to get involved in this case because if it does, its ruling will affect ALL states.
Well they haven’t denied it yet.
Even if they do deny it that is contradicting even SCOTUS because they denied hearing some other case some years back that the 9th said guns were a collective right and not individual.
Can’t remember the case or details off hand but if they deny both (old case and new Heller case) that means in one case SCOTUS let the 9th stand with collective and the DC stand with individual. Which comes out even and SCOTUS gets to wash their hands of the issue again.
SCOTUS seriously needs to hear this case because if they don’t it won’t be until the next administration that bad things could happen depending on who is elected, then it will be too late.
It’s not a bad thing when the Supreme Court is looking for excuses not to rewrite the law. It’ll finally get involved when one of the other circuits upholds a law like D.C.’s.
Well see that’s a problem also.... DC is not a state. Congress can do basically whatever it wants.
This would be a better case if it came out of a state and not DC.
Does ANYONE here believe that if SCOTUS refuses to hear this case that DC will let people carry guns? Get serious. DC will simply do what Michigan or Illinois do — make it legal but in fact impossible to get a license. Nothing will change.
No offense... but I hope you are wrong as well. ;-)
What’s the problem? If the Gates Militia becomes generally viewed as a viable threat, we have a system of dealing with such problems: police, military, militia.
Every fall, our national militia engages in live-fire live-target war games dominated by 16,000,000 snipers. Each participant has full-blown arms, ammo, comms, cammo, transport, support, etc. Operation “Deer Season” should be a reminder that there is no military problem we can’t deal with.
Congress cannot do basically whatever it wants, because there’s a Constitution that delegates its powers and reserves certain rights to the people.
This is being filed in DC precisely because doing so in a state excessively complicates the issue. This case cannot get any simpler: the federal government is infringing on an explicitly protected right of citizens.
Well... no. Congress' power is limited by the Constitution. Even in DC.
Careful what you wish for. If you get another Roe v. Wade decision, this time for guns, it will make things a lot harder to reverse.
Yes, it’s long past time for SCOTUS to support the Constitution, instead of undermining it. But the way I read it, it’s 4-4, and 1 undecided.
The correct place to put the limit on the 2nd Amendment is at the stage where there is uncontrolled fallout from use that causes great harm. This would cover nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
There is no such issue with small arms, cannon, conventional explosives, etc. So, Mr. Gates wouldn’t be able to manufacture or possess nukes.
Mike
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.