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 ...
Perhaps you did nothing. I did what I thought was necessary. It didn't involve killing anybody. I own many arms similar to those banned, but just as effective, that I wouldn't have owned otherwise. The well-regulated militia is just a little better off for it.
They know better than to dump a frog directly into a boiling frog pot.
A non-favorable ruling makes it only a matter of time though. What will you do? Wait until the wolf is at your door? Hope that it satiates itself on your neighbors before coming for you? Or will you set out to make sure the wolf can hurt no one else ever again?
They do make a couple of good points though.
On that note, there is a theory that whatever the verdict, it will be 9-0 - not because it is unanimous, but to conceal who actually voted which way.
Could be history in the making.
While most of us are really just blathering in generalities, Supreme Court justices need to be very precise in their wording - which sometimes comes across to us rabble as contradictions when they're not.
Well I put it into the context of inciting a riot, but of course fraud and libel, etc. are also not covered by 2A.
Right to own a bazooka?? Are you telling me that Class III covers this? I’d like to see some backup to that statement. Buzz when ready.
Please keep me posted as to your well-educated interpretation of the status of this critically important case.
Yup, hopefully cooler heads will prevail,, we can only hope anyway.
Hate to see the court ‘sacked’ myself ... but in the words of Chuck Heston.. ;-)
We’ll know soon enough..
FWIW: full auto is not magical, and machineguns are not evil incarnate. They are standard military tools.
Heck, the first was invented in 1717.
If the vote is 9-0 then everyone voted for it. How does that conceal anything?
That's putting it mildly.
They're the legal counsel for DC in Heller.
Federally, yes, that's legal.
You just have to file a Form 4 and pay a $200 tax on every round fired.
Gets kinda expensive.
Given the 5-4 liberal slant of the current SCOTUS, IMHO it would be best if they don't grant certiorari. I don't know when, if ever, the balance will shift to the conservative side since it seems very likely that either Hillary or Giuliani will appoint the next 2 Justices, and neither of them will appoint a strict constructionist.
I'm very much afraid that if the court takes the D.C. case it will come down on the side of the bogus collective right interpretation instead of the individual right interpretation that everyone who understands plain English language knows is correct. Once that incorrect interpretation is made by a liberal-slanted SCOTUS, a precedent will have been set and our 2nd Amendment rights will have lost their constitutional protection forever. The anti-gunners know that as well as we do, and they're anxious to get a decision from the current court before a conservative president could appoint a strict constructionist Justice to take Stevens' or Ginsberg's place and change the balance to 5-4 in our favor. I don't think they have to worry about that, since it doesn't appear that any of the more conservative GOP candidates have any chance of being nominated, much less of winning the general election. Rudy has been a long time enemy of the 2nd Amendment who sees gun ownership as a privilege granted by government instead of a basic human right protected by the US Constitution, and I can't imagine him appointing a Justice who would rule for the individual right interpretation.
Agreed. I don’t want to bother with Class III hassles (and wouldn’t want to pay for the damned ammo anyway), but IMO they should not be excluded from 2A.
The question is where to draw the line. Clearly nukes are out, and in my mind 500 lb. bombs are also not covered by 2A.
I don’t know exactly where the bright line is, but certainly not at any semi automatic weapon.
It conceals who may, er, garner the attention of tree-waterers.
Wow. Learn something new everyday. Thanks. I had no idea.
It could also be in the hope that a Democrat is elected President by which to make the issue moot.
So yes, you have a Right to own a bazooka, machine gun, flamethrower, M1 Abrams, F-22 Raptor, littoral capital ship with full compliment, ect...
Right now, the government won't let you. This is in violation of the Second Amendments limitation on their power.
Don't gimme the BS about such things not being available in the late 1700's. The Puckle gun, cannons, and capital ships were all perfectly legal for civilians to own then.
Or will you know try and tell us Free Speech is only protected for handwritten quill manuscripts or Gutenberg hand-press type publications?
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.