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 ...
Bring it on.
Permit me to examine the reasoning that admits that all powers not given up are reserved. Apply this. If you give to the United States the power of direct taxation, in making all laws necessary to give it operation, (which is a power given by the last clause in the 8th section of the 1st article,) suppose they should be of opinion that the right of the trial by jury was not one of the requisites to carry it into effect; there is no check in this Constitution to prevent the formal abolition of it. There is a general power given to them to make all laws that will enable them to carry their powers into effect. There are no limits pointed out. They are not restrained or controlled from making any law, however oppressive in its operation, which they may think necessary to carry their powers into effect. By this general, unqualified power, they may infringe not only on the trial by jury, but the liberty of the press, and every right that is not expressly secured or excepted from that general power. I conceive that such general powers are very dangerous. Our great unalienable rights ought to be secured from being destroyed by such unlimited powers, either by a bill of rights, or by an express provision in the body of the Constitution. It is immaterial in which of these two modes rights are secured. - James Monroe. Elliot's Debates, Volume 3] Tuesday, June 10, 1788.
It should be a slam dunk. However, we have seen politics turn reason an history on it's head before...
That would be a step in the right direction. When DC’s gun ban goes out the window and crime plummets, it will make it hard for other big cities to justify their bans to their voters. And while federal appellate courts are certainly not bound by the rulings of other federal appellate courts, they do look to them, and the rulings carry more weight when the SC has declined to hear an appeal.
That’s a good summary of the situation.
If the USSC overturns the appeal, we have a civil war. It’s that simple. Unlike the first civil war, this one will be quite different and the brutality will be very concentrated.
We’ve fought for years through the ballot box, the soap box, and it’s gotten us very little. If this fails, we are at the point where Americans will realize that the only box left is the ammo box and they will do it because to wait allows the anti-freedom forces time to hurt us more.
I think this is some of what the USSC is debating. I think they will grant Cert. and broaden the ruling simply because they know that to do anything else will cause a great deal of strife and violence. That is besides the legal points and the Constitutional points.
Mike
We have already been losing it. Incrementally. Over the course of the past 73 years.
I'd rather attempt to stop the bleeding now at the risk of "death", rather than do nothing and bleed to death 1-20 years down the road. At least we can get on with what needs to be done.
Without any sarcasm, if Gates wants to become a nuclear power, why not? He is about the only one who could afford it. Atomic weapons are hideously expensive to maintain, just so they can sit on the shelf as a threat, and the stock has to be checked frequently to be sure you aren't just launching a radioactive can, full of highly machined rocks. Machine guns are VERY expensive to own, and shoot, and the larger the bore, the more expensive the round. A .50 BMG round is going for $6.00 and up, EACH. the only way the military can afford it is that they own their own factories.
Suppose, just for grins, that you own a 105mm howitzer. It's going to cost you a few grand per round, just to find out if it's zeroed. Ultimately, even Bill Gates can't justify peeing away couple million a day on a private army when they are sitting around, waiting. Henchmen are really expensive, as well as a secret underground fortress, and sharks with lasers on their heads.
These kind of silly, half-assed "what-if" scare tactics are popular with liberals and the mentally challenged. It's why, however, that super criminals have never really caught on in real life.
There may be some isolated instances of violence. But I really doubt the average American gun owner would care enough about this to risk their comfy existence, not to mention their life. We as a nation are way too soft. We did nothing in 1994 when they banned scary-looking guns, for example.
I think the more likely scenario if the USSC rules no individual right is a push for a constitutional amendment to "clarify" the 2nd for those too stupid to understand plain English. Not to say it would pass.
Congressman Billybob
I will give you the absolute best case scenario that I see possible:
We get a declaration that the type of arms carried by an ordinary infantryman cannot be banned outright. i.e. a large pistol and a modern rifle (semi-auto, perhaps 3-shot burst like the M-16A2) but not necessarily fully automatic).
I would not be surprised if the decision, while putatively in our favor, left open the door to all kinds of licensing, registration, and carrying restrictions. I would also expect that even under a highly favorable decision there would be no protection for arms such as belt fed machine guns, derringers and small revolvers, .50 caliber rifles, bazookas, etc.
-ccm
I think you are seriously underestimating the damaging effects of fire.
“Some serious and unreported infighting is going on among the Justices over this case.”
Congressman, any chance you could elaborate on that statement?
If you use as your baseline the arms required for citizens to resist their government the answer is a little easier. The government isn’t going to nuke itself (well, maybe Hillary would) - and I’m pretty sure that some sort of attempt to use the military against US civilians would result in an internal fight in the armed services. So what does that have to do with your question?:
No nukes, but anything that light infantry can/does carry would be my personal benchmark, even though that is more restrictive than what the amendment originally intended.
Always remember, when the amendment was penned, private citizens owned cannons, mortars and warships - pretty much anything that one could afford was on the table.
Which is another reason why SCOTUS has shied away from this for so long. Each and every justice knows what the amendment is there for, and it scares the hell out of them.
If they rule against Heller, wouldn't that mean they lied in their previous ruling? That could be a bit of a horn to hang themselves on.
While nukes area sticky issue, they are also a red herring. I can think of several different civilian uses for nuclear demolitions charges for future industries.
Be that as it may, it is an "uncomfortable" scenario for those of us who grew up under threat of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War.
Further, no rights granted by the Constitution are absolute, at least to my understanding. Eg.: No right to shout “Fire” and cause a riot, even though there is a First Amendment.
Same with 2A. Gun banners like the “Why can’t I own a nuclear missle?” argument. Where to draw the line is a legitimate point of debate (like with fully automatic weapons), but to argue that a handgun (the weakest firearm of all), a rifle, or a shotgun was outside of the Framer’s intent is ridiculous.
Good analysis and insight.
I’m no lawyer but I would think that the difference between “Arms” and “Army” would be an easy distinction for them to make.
They could even rule that one Nuke or WMD would equal an army and there is no right to keep and bear a standing army.
IMHO
What you do not have a right to do is defraud or even injure others through raising a false alarm of "fire". You have every Right to shout fire if the theater is actually on fire.
So yes, you have a Right to own a bazooka. You just don't have a Right to fire it off downtown Chicago to clear out rush hour traffic.
Looks like we’ll know for sure
Nov. 26th per the article.
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.