Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court to Take Up DC Ban Case
MSNBC ^ | 11/20/2007 | n/a

Posted on 11/20/2007 10:12:34 AM PST by Pyro7480

Breaking on MSNBC... Supreme Court to take up DC gun ban case

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: banglist; dc; docket; heller; parker; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last
To: Dead Corpse

Radio Free America will be jammed in the FedZone.


101 posted on 11/20/2007 11:55:41 AM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

5-4 that this goes down as an individual right. Eitherway the Goberment and Congresscritters will be controlled by the citizens of this country.


102 posted on 11/20/2007 12:00:09 PM PST by DownInFlames (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

I hope they know that.


103 posted on 11/20/2007 12:02:48 PM PST by B4Ranch (( "Freedom is not free, but don't worry the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share." ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; Old_Professor
It would appear to me it is possible their choicely verbiage of “....violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia...” is an indication of their actual acknowledgment of the Constitutional right of gun ownership absent any state affiliation of the individual. That said, there's hope DC's infringements might not survive the SCOTUS battle.

What think ye?

104 posted on 11/20/2007 12:06:20 PM PST by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: drpix

105 posted on 11/20/2007 12:10:19 PM PST by Jasper (Stand Fast, Craigellachie!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse; All

Dear Lord,

For what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful.

Otherwise, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

Amen.


106 posted on 11/20/2007 12:13:20 PM PST by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: oldfart; holdonnow
...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia...

"State-regulated" militia?

We're going to lose this one, I think, just based on the Court's choice of that one hyphenated term. The constitution does not refer to a "state-regulated" militia. It refers to a "well regulated" militia:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

If the court enters into this with the presumption that "regulated" means subjected to state regulations, rather than with a straight and true aim, then we've already lost significant ground: the definition of "well regulated."

This is going to end horribly, IMHO.

107 posted on 11/20/2007 12:15:47 PM PST by Petronski (Reject the liberal troika: romney, giuliani, mccain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

bookmarking for later


108 posted on 11/20/2007 12:16:22 PM PST by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
I wasn't asked, but...

I think the phrasing of the question means we have already won. The "not affiliated" bit excises any discussion of the right as "collective"; if it is not an individual right (or at least has an individual component), then there is simply nothing to discuss.

109 posted on 11/20/2007 12:17:44 PM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Those are plainly two different terms.
Methinks the wording is to completely avoid any “collective right” discussion - which leaves the presumption of an “individual right”. We’re not going to lose - we’ve already won!


110 posted on 11/20/2007 12:19:27 PM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Really?

I think the majority answers this question by saying:

“What 2nd amendment rights of a person not part of a state-regulated militia? There are none. Next.”


111 posted on 11/20/2007 12:21:40 PM PST by Petronski (Reject the liberal troika: romney, giuliani, mccain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Also this case is unusual in that BOTH sides of the issue wanted the USSC to hear it. I’m not sure why the pro-2nd side wanted it heard, but it suggests confidence that a wider, favorable ruling could be obtained.

See my post 89. The issue to be reviewed is VERY narrow, not wide. The Court will only decide the collective/individual issue regarding guns for use in the home in Washington DC.

BTW, how do you know that both sides wanted it? I haven't been able to find any tally of votes for certiorari on this one.

112 posted on 11/20/2007 12:23:15 PM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Both I and the NRA would have preferred to have this battle after one more conservative justice is appointed.

Right now, it could go either way.


113 posted on 11/20/2007 12:28:42 PM PST by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Gadsden will be on many, many sleeves.


114 posted on 11/20/2007 12:35:55 PM PST by wastedyears (One Marine vs. 550 consultants. Sounds like good odds to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
That’s my thinking. It appears their wording recognizes RKBA as an inalienable, individual right.Then should RKBA be ruled as "inalienable" or a right "not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated", it means that right never was, is, nor ever will be intended to be lawfully transferred from the individual to a collective organization whether it be militia or government.
115 posted on 11/20/2007 12:37:38 PM PST by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

DC lost in Federal court and on appeal, and demonstrated their desire for the Supremes to reverse in a petition for certoriari. The lower court victors in Parker vs. DC filed a “cross-petition for certoriari” which means they too wanted a ruling from our nine unelected black robed masters.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/heller_cert_petition.pdf


116 posted on 11/20/2007 12:45:21 PM PST by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
The constitution does not refer to a "state-regulated" militia. It refers to a "well regulated" militia:

IMO, the reason the SCOTUS worded it that particular way is so that when they rule in favor of the individual's RKBA, they also strike down the presumptions in legality of state regulation or state controlled infringements upon the basics of that right.

FWIW, I hope your perspective is wrong and we can all say, "Told you so..."

117 posted on 11/20/2007 12:46:24 PM PST by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
FWIW, I hope your perspective is wrong and we can all say, "Told you so..."

Me too.

118 posted on 11/20/2007 12:49:46 PM PST by Petronski (Reject the liberal troika: romney, giuliani, mccain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

By both sides I meant those prosecuting it and those defending it. Not the justices - I have no idea of which justices granted a review.


119 posted on 11/20/2007 12:54:06 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

It will be a while before we hear his revisions. :>)


120 posted on 11/20/2007 1:14:23 PM PST by beltfed308 (Rudy: When you absolutely,positively need a liberal for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: this is my name not yours

“BUY TWO, BURY ONE”

And don’t bury it in your freakin’ back yard! And don’t forget the ammo, sling or holster and cleaning kit to go with the one you didn’t bury in your backyard.


121 posted on 11/20/2007 1:23:50 PM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

“Paging Henry Bowman.....paging Henry Bowman.”

A great book, I read it every year just to make sure my heads in the right place.


122 posted on 11/20/2007 1:27:20 PM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
I hope you are right. Most of the "debate" I have read on the 2A has been either hyper-right or hyper-left with very little reasonable discussion in between.

I think the founders meant for the 2A to assert that "the People" have the right to keep and bear arms, and I am one of those people, as are you.

Is it an unviolable right with no restrictions? There's the rub. Let's say that the SC validates the 2A as an individual right that "shall not be infringed". As I fully expect they will. Does that mean that the NFA and GCA68 and any silly AWB are invalidated? Does that mean that felons cannot be prohibited from owning guns? Does that mean that everyone can wear a gun into a courtroom or the office? Of course, the antis will throw up the old bazooka and nuclear warhead arguments. What are reasonable restrictions?

Somehow I doubt that the SC will dig very deep into that pandora's box. They will say that yes, it is an individual right, and be very vague on restrictions.

Since this case revolves around the right of DC residents to possess a working gun "in the home", maybe that will force them to override local restrictions.

So if the 2A is validated as an individual right, what do you think will be the legal fallout as to the NFA, felons, domestic violence, etc?

123 posted on 11/20/2007 1:27:36 PM PST by Sender (You are the weapon. What you hold in your hand is just a tool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: AngryJawa

“Gentlemen, break out the Solothurns.”

All I could afford was a Lahti. With extra cream please.


124 posted on 11/20/2007 1:29:38 PM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sender

Yes, people get kinda nutzoid over restrictions - mostly because they don’t understand basic safety and defense well enough to articulate a sane stance, ignorance which culminates in “but what about felons with nukes?” “YES!” “NO!”

This case is only focused on private “keep”ing at home, with a strong implication of bearing at home as well. [blink] Holy cow - They DID squeeze “bear” in! sort of, minimally, at home - but the second law referenced prohibited “bearing” a licensed item from one room to another. Anyway...

SCOTUS won’t dig deep, focusing just on the home. Restrictions should be limited to preventing collateral damage to neighbors should the arms “go off” (addressing the grenades & nukes question), domestic violence & felons restrictions will likely stand, with most other restrictions curtailed by the “privacy of one’s home” principle.

An area to consider: getting something TO one’s home. You’ve gotta bear that thing at SOME point, if only to get it from the dealer to your nightstand - and as that is critical to “keeping” the item, “bearing” outside the home could come into play.

Gonna be interesting.


125 posted on 11/20/2007 1:47:14 PM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Sender
Does that mean that felons cannot be prohibited from owning guns?

The crux of this issue is that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty (rights), or property, without due process of law.

A felon is denied life (in capital cases), liberty (freedom, while in jail, and other rights such as voting, choice of residence, and so on, upon release) and property (fines, forfeitures), WITH due process of law.

So it's arguable that denying felons the right to own firearms after their release is within the scope of the police power, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a lawsuit come up where a non-violent felon who has completed sentence, parole, and all other supervision sues for his right to armed self-defense.

126 posted on 11/20/2007 1:51:20 PM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Jasper
You for got the caption for that photo:

COME AND GET IT!


127 posted on 11/20/2007 2:03:40 PM PST by mc5cents (Show me just what Mohammd brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

From the court that found CFR constitutional

I ain’t optimistic

Once a country starts down the road to serfdom to it doesn’t recover

Just look at Britain and the rest of history


128 posted on 11/20/2007 3:20:56 PM PST by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
If you ask me, the Court has already tipped thier hands by substituting "state-regulated" for "well regulated. They are going to come down on the side of a collective right. The fix is in.

Have to agree -Just using that phrase is a giveaway
129 posted on 11/20/2007 3:24:58 PM PST by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
Nope. This is probably not good news. The supremes could have left the lower court decision intact. It was a good decision.

Have to agree there also
130 posted on 11/20/2007 3:26:28 PM PST by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
A felon is denied life (in capital cases), liberty (freedom, while in jail, and other rights such as voting, choice of residence, and so on, upon release) and property (fines, forfeitures), WITH due process of law.

A felon is legitimately made a slave of the state, as permitted in the Thirteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment never applied to slaves. Of course, some people think the public at large should be slaves of the government--hence the need for disarmament.

131 posted on 11/20/2007 3:27:11 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1
...you guys want to comment on "when the balloon goes up" stuff to have?

Drugs, like aspirin, kaopectate, antibiotics, etc.

Oh, and some Claymores. They work really well for perimeter security...

5.56mm

132 posted on 11/20/2007 3:36:32 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Kinda like this one:

Buffy: I’m beyond tired. I’m beyond scared. I’m standing on the mouth of hell, and it’s going to swallow me whole. And it’ll choke on me. We’re not ready? They’re not ready. They think we’re gonna wait for the end to come, like we always do. I’m done waiting. They want an apocalypse? Oh, we’ll give ‘em one. Anyone else who wants to run... do it now. Because we just became an army. We just declared war. From now on we won’t just face our worst fears, we will seek them out. We will find them and cut out their hearts one by one until the First shows itself for what it really is. And I’ll kill it myself. There’s only one thing on this earth more powerful than evil. And that’s us. Any questions?


133 posted on 11/20/2007 3:57:31 PM PST by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842

Its worse than that in states like California that do not have a 2A type-provision in their state’ Constitutions. The Marxist legislature here would waste no time in banning ALL individual gun ownership - followed by an attempt at confiscation.


134 posted on 11/20/2007 4:03:17 PM PST by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; Travis McGee
Not good.

This is probably not going to go our way. After all this court has already struck down the 1st amendment and private property rights.

135 posted on 11/20/2007 4:10:06 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jasper

Terrific photo of the Minuteman, thanks!


136 posted on 11/20/2007 5:27:26 PM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
From the court that found CFR constitutional I ain’t optimistic

Don't forget CO2 as pollution, and confiscation of private property for "property tax enhancement."

137 posted on 11/20/2007 5:30:31 PM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Any questions?

Yeah... What took you so long? ;-)

The die is cast. Let's see what pips are showing next March.

138 posted on 11/20/2007 5:32:45 PM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: uncbob; ModelBreaker
Well all I can say is that if the SC rules that individuals have no right to self-defense, and Hillary or Hussein get elected, I have a respectable pile of ammo and a Katadyn water filter. Molon labe.

I had to resign from my job today. I need to go and move my elderly parents to an assisted living home by next Monday, and my job said if I do that I would be fired. So I quit. I'm going to take care of my own.

And if the SC and the Democrats come for me, I'm going to take care of my own. I have lots of ammo and very little left to lose.

139 posted on 11/20/2007 5:51:00 PM PST by Sender (You are the weapon. What you hold in your hand is just a tool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Sender
Prayers for you and your family going up to the Lord.

5.56mm

140 posted on 11/20/2007 6:02:02 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
And you know, I don't have a problem with a non-violent felon who has served his or her sentence owning a gun. The only reasonable restrictions I can understand is if someone is crazy violent and mentally unstable.

I have known a few people in my life who should NOT have a gun. Because they will get all drunked up and start a fight and pull it out and shoot someone. I honestly don't know how to write the legislation on something like that. I sure as hell don't want Schumer and Kennedy deciding who is dangerous or not.

As the wise Chinese proverb says, "may you live in interesting times".

141 posted on 11/20/2007 6:03:26 PM PST by Sender (You are the weapon. What you hold in your hand is just a tool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe

Thank you, and may God bless you and yours.


142 posted on 11/20/2007 6:04:31 PM PST by Sender (You are the weapon. What you hold in your hand is just a tool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

I believe it is worded that way because that is argument that DC and other gun-grabbers are making. In other words, DC believes there is no right to gun ownership without some relationship to the militia.


143 posted on 11/20/2007 6:08:52 PM PST by Ranxerox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
It might have been a compromise to accept the appeal.

OTOH, I do not have much faith in the judiciary these days. It seems as if there is just too much graft and fraud upon the court at the lower courts. My sense is that everyone knows it is going on but the courts being relatively self-regulating, and lawyers and court reporters concerned for their licenses, one does not hear much about it in the open. Since all the SC justices came up through the lower ranks, they are at a minimum aware of this and in the worst case they profited from it.

Neither the trial lawyers nor the tort reform corporate advocates, the two main heavies in the court systems these days, have much to gain from letting the 2A floodgates open.

So a lot of pressure will be brought to bear through back channels on individual justices to reject the standard model.

And by pressure, I mean real pressure, the kind that does not go away and that causes one to lay awake at night.

Connect the dots, hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

144 posted on 11/20/2007 9:18:39 PM PST by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Not so fast. The usually dependably statist Ginsburg has already voted for the individual RKBA, IIRC, and Scalia sometimes votes "conservative" as opposed to "Constitutional", in favor of the government over their masters.

You may be right, but if the individuals you named rule as you suggest: 1 Leftist for RKBA, and one nominal conservative against RKBA, that still equals 4-4, with Kennedy as the swing vote. I would rather not have to fret about it.

145 posted on 11/20/2007 11:08:08 PM PST by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

I have never understood how even the most flaming of liberal Supreme Court justices can hold that “the People” confers collectively for the 2nd when “the People” confers individually for the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th, and I would LOVE somebody here to finally explain to me the legal gymnastics that would be required to do just that.

I realize that circuit courts have held exactly to that collective view, but never heard an argument that reconciles how “the People” can mean different things in different places in the Constitution.

I will be absolutely baffled if even the flaming SCOTUS libs can find a collective right in the 2nd Amendment. I am terrified by the thought of them overturning Heller/Parker but just can’t see how they can rule the 2nd to protect anything BUT an individual right. I just can’t see it.


146 posted on 11/21/2007 1:17:13 AM PST by Freedom_Is_Not_Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Sender

“I had to resign from my job today. I need to go and move my elderly parents to an assisted living home by next Monday, and my job said if I do that I would be fired. So I quit. I’m going to take care of my own.”

Good for you. Family indeed comes first. And it sounds like you worked for jerks anyhow. Never fear. You will find another job; there’s always another job, and hopefully this time your employer will have more understanding than your previous one has. Best of luck to your elderly parents and you.


147 posted on 11/21/2007 1:40:17 AM PST by flaglady47 (Thinking out loud while grinding teeth in political frustration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Most MSM say first gun case in 70 years.
Supreme Court Gun Cases
by Dave Kopel, Stephen P. Halbrook, Alan Korwin

Sales info here
News Media Fact Sheet
General findings

Descriptive Index of Cases
All 92 Supreme Court gun cases are listed here alphabetically,
as answered questions, to help you find specific proceedings,
and quickly grasp the gun-related elements of the case.

Only the questions related to firearms or self defense are listed
even if, as is often the case, the decision itself has a different focal point.
Many other questions are indeed typically addressed in the cases and,
because of the terseness of the questions below, you should rely on
the full actual cases for an understanding of the significance of each one.
Think of this index as a navigation tool, a memory jogger, and a good read.

• Indicates the 44 cases presented in their entirety in Supreme Court Gun Cases.
Ð Indicates the 14 self-defense cases.

Key: Name; Date; Citation; Page in Supreme Court Gun Cases

Acers v. United States • Ð; 1896; 164 U.S. 388; 238
Is fear of a deadly attack, without reasonable demonstrated grounds for the fear, sufficient to support a claim of self defense [NO]; Must the danger be immediate [YES]; Can any object be considered as a deadly weapon depending on how it was used [YES].

Adams v. Williams; 1972; 407 U.S. 143; 363
Can a peace officer conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons, if there is reason to believe a suspect is armed and dangerous [YES]; Are 4th Amendment guarantees violated by such a stop and frisk [NO].

Adamson v. California; 1947; 332 U.S. 46; 310
[The dissenting opinion in a 5th Amendment case argues that the 14th Amendment was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, against the states].

Alberty v. United States • Ð; 1896; 162 U.S. 499; 231
If a husband sees another man trying to get into his wife’s room window at night is it natural for him to investigate further [YES]; Is the husband under a duty to retreat when attacked with a knife under such circumstances [NO]; May the husband use only as much force as is necessary to repel the assault [YES]; If in an ensuing confrontation the husband shoots and kills the other man, then flees, must his flight in and of itself be seen as evidence of his guilt [NO].

Albright v. Oliver; 1994; 510 U.S. 266; 481
[The dissenting opinion in a case involving freedom from malicious prosecution cites the right to keep and bear arms as among fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution].

Allen v. United States • Ð; 1896; 164 U.S. 492; 241
Are words alone sufficient provocation to justify an assault [NO]; Are words alone sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter [NO]; Can premeditation and intent to kill be determined from your actions [YES]; Although flight after a possibly criminal event may suggest guilt, does it prove it conclusively [NO].

Allison v. United States • Ð; 1895; 160 U.S. 203; 216
Is it reasonable to believe that you’re in immediate deadly danger if a person, known to be abusive, known to carry a pistol, and who has made public threats against your life, makes a motion as if to draw down on you, even if it turns out he wasn’t armed at the time [YES]; If there is no corroborating evidence besides your testimony, may the jury decide to take your word for it and acquit based on your credibility [YES]; If you have your deer rifle with you while visiting a friend’s house and your adversary shows up, and in an ensuing confrontation you shoot him, can the judge instruct the jury that you’re guilty of murder if you armed yourself to go hunt down your adversary, when there is no evidence to support this claim [NO].

Andersen v. United States Ð; 1898; 170 U.S. 481; 255
If an indictment is brought charging that a defendant shot and then threw a victim’s body into the sea, so the exact cause of death cannot be known, is the indictment flawed and invalid [NO]; Do the elements of self defense have to be present for an accused person to successfully claim self defense [YES].

Bailey v. United States •; 1995; 516 U.S. 137; 542
Can the sentence for a drug offense be increased for using a gun, if the defendant possessed a gun at the time of the offense but did not actively employ it [NO]; Is the “inert presence of a firearm” sufficient to indicate “use” for the purpose of enhancing certain drug offenses [NO]; Does storing a gun with drugs or drug money constitute “use” for this purpose [NO]; Does hiding a gun where it can be grabbed and used if necessary constitute use [NO]; If the gun is not disclosed or mentioned is it used [NO].

Barrett v. United States •; 1976; 423 U.S. 212; 382
Is the Gun Control Act violated by a convicted felon acquiring a gun that has at some point moved in interstate commerce, even if the felon’s acquisition and possession occurred entirely within one state [YES].

Bass, United States v., •; 1971; 404 U.S. 336; 351
To convict a felon of illegal possession of a firearm, does the prosecution need to show, in addition to possession, that the firearm had a connection to interstate commerce [YES]; Does the same apply to receiving, and to transporting a firearm [YES]; Would showing that the firearm had at some time previously traveled in interstate commerce be a sufficient nexus [YES].

Bean, United States v., •; 2002; 01-704; 643
If BATF fails to act on a request for restoration of the right to bear arms, but does not actually deny the request, are there actionable grounds for judicial review to get those rights restored [NO].

Beard v. United States • Ð; 1895; 158 U.S. 550; 208
Can you stand your ground with a shotgun against an unprovoked armed attack on your property near your home [YES]; Is there a greater duty to retreat on your own property than in your house [NO].

Beecham v. United States •; 1994; 511 U.S. 368; 482
Does reinstatement of a federal felon’s civil right to keep and bear arms by a state court remove the federal disability against felons bearing arms [NO]; Does the fact that Congress currently provides no way for a felon to restore the right to keep and bear arms matter in this regard [NO].

Biswell, United States v.,; 1972; 406 U.S. 311; 361
Is the 4th Amendment violated when a federally licensed firearms dealer’s business is searched under 18 USC §923(g) without a warrant, and illegally possessed guns are seized [NO]; When a dealer “chooses to engage in this pervasively regulated business” and to accept a federal license, does he do so with the knowledge that his business will be subject to effective inspection [YES].

Bousley v. United States; 1998; 523 U.S. 614; 599
Does a defendant need to understand what constitutes “use” of a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, in order to enter a constitutionally valid guilty plea [YES].

Brown v. United States • Ð; 1921; 256 U.S. 335; 285
Is there a duty to retreat when attacked by a man with a knife [NO]; Believing you’re in a mortal conflict, if you fire a shot in the heat of combat, which in cool reflection later may be seen as unnecessary, may you still be acquitted on grounds of self defense [YES]; Is your right of self defense roughly similar in your home, on your land, and at your work [YES]; Can detached reflection be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife [NO].

Brown v. Walker; 1896; 161 U.S. 591; 223
Is the object of the first eight amendments to the Constitution to incorporate into the fundamental law of the land certain principles of natural justice [YES]; Are the first eight amendments limitations only upon the powers of Congress and the Federal courts, and not applicable to the several States, except so far as the 14th Amendment may have made them applicable [YES].

Bryan v. United States •; 1998; 524 U.S. 184; 613
Are you committing the crime of “willfully” dealing in firearms without a license, if you know your actions are illegal but do not know the licensing law you are violating [YES]; Was the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act enacted to protect law-abiding citizens who might inadvertently violate the law [YES].

Burton v. Sills •; 1969; 394 U.S. 812; 344
[The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected a 2nd Amendment suit against a discretionary firearm licensing law, citing cases that held the 2nd Amendment inapplicable to the states; the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial federal question.]

Busic v. United States; 1980; 446 U.S. 398; 410
Can an assault sentence, increased under the armed-assault-of-a-federal-officer law, also be increased under the separate federal armed-felony law [NO].

Caron v. United States; 1998; 524 U.S. 308; 623
Can a three-time violent-felony loser avoid a five-year mandatory penalty enhancement for carrying a gun in a subsequent crime he commits, if a state court had partially restored his right to keep and bear arms [NO]; If a state restores a convicted felon’s right to keep and bear long guns but not handguns, is the federal ban for felons on possession on all guns removed [NO].

Castillo v. United States •; 2000; 530 U.S. 120; 629
Is the type of firearm used in a Gun Control Act violation an element of the offense that must be determined by a jury [YES]; Is the type of firearm used in a GCA violation a sentencing factor that may be determined by a judge [NO].

Cruikshank, United States v., •; 1875; 92 U.S. 542; 159
Does the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose depend on the Constitution for its existence [NO]; Does the 2nd Amendment have no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, and prevent Congress from infringing on the right to bear arms [YES].

Cummings v. Missouri; 1866; 71 U.S. 277; 158
Is deprivation or suspension of a person’s civil rights, including the right to bear arms, a form of punishment [YES].

Custis v. United States; 1994; 511 U.S. 485; 485
Can a defendant at a federal sentencing hearing (in this case under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984) attack the validity of prior state convictions that are used to enhance his sentence [NO].

Deal v. United States; 1993; 505 U.S. 129; 469
When a statute calls for quadrupling the prison sentence for subsequent crimes of violence involving use of a gun, can a defendant suffer the enhanced penalty if the subsequent and original charges are all proven during a single trial [YES].

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services; 1989; 489 U.S. 189; 441
Does the 14th Amendment guarantee that a state must protect its citizens from private violations of life, liberty or property [NO].

Dickerson v. New Banner Institute •; 1983; 460 U.S. 103; 411
If a state criminal conviction, which removes your ability to bear arms under federal law, is expunged at the state level, is your federal disability from bearing arms automatically removed [NO]; Is it constitutional to deny your right to arms after your conviction has been expunged [YES].

Dred Scott v. Sandford; 1856; 60 U.S. 393; 149
Do freed slaves have the rights of other American citizens, including the right to keep and bear arms [NO]; Can Congress deny to the people in federal Territories the right to keep and bear arms [NO].

Duncan v. Louisiana; 1968; 391 U.S. 145; 333
Is the right to keep and bear arms one of the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution [YES].

Ex Parte Milligan; 1866; 71 U.S. 2; 150
[The published legal arguments on both sides of this case, involving trial of a civilian by court martial, both make reference to the 2nd Amendment as an individual right belonging to the people, but a right not belonging to slaves or rebels; a man cannot violate the laws of war if he is not in the military or in the militia in actual service.]

Florida v. J. L.; 2000; 529 U.S. 266; 627
Is a vague and anonymous tip sufficient grounds to conduct a search of a person on the street alleged to be illegally carrying a gun [NO].

Freed, United States v., •; 1971; 401 U.S. 601; 345
Does the regulatory scheme of the amended National Firearms Act violate the 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination, or violate a person’s right to due process of law [NO].

Galioto, United States v., •; 1986; 477 U.S. 556; 439
[Court dismisses as moot the constitutionality of allowing felons a means to restore their right to obtain firearms but not allowing the same for former mental patients, because Congress, while this case was in process, changed the law to allow any person with firearms disabilities to apply for relief.]

Gonzales, United States v.,; 1997; 520 U.S. 1; 552
May the federal five-year-sentence enhancement for using or carrying a gun during a drug trafficking crime run concurrently with a state sentence [NO].

Gourko v. United States • Ð; 1894; 153 U.S. 183; 189
If you shoot someone who has repeatedly threatened you, and the circumstances of the shooting are not found to be justifiable as self defense, does the fact that you armed yourself in response to the threat automatically make the shooting murder (as opposed to manslaughter) [NO].

Griswold v. Connecticut; 1965; 381 U.S. 479; 322
Do the first eight amendments to the Constitution protect fundamental rights of the people [YES].

Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California; 1934; 293 U.S. 245; 294
Do the states have the authority to train their able-bodied male citizens of suitable age, to develop fitness to serve in the state militia [YES]; Is the state the sole judge of the means and amount of training as long as it doesn’t conflict with federal law [YES].

Harris v. United States; 2002; 00-10666; 634
Is brandishing a gun during a specified drug-trafficking crime a sentencing factor to be determined by a judge, and not an element of the crime to be determined by a jury [YES].

Haynes v. United States •; 1968; 390 U.S. 85; 326
Does Congress have the authority to regulate the manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearms, subject to constitutional limitations, and to tax unlawful activities [YES]; Did the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act violate the defendant’s 5th Amendment privilege against self incrimination [YES]; Was a proper claim of 5th Amendment protection a complete defense against failure to register or possession of an unregistered NFA weapon [YES]. (Note that Congress redrafted the relevant statute to overcome these findings and continue to require NFA registration.)

Houston v. Moore; 1820; 18 U.S. 1; 147
[The first mention of the 2nd Amendment in a High Court decision occurs as a brief remark in a dissent in this case, postulating that the amendment would have little effect on the legitimacy of a state running and arming its militia in the absence of, or subordinate to Congressional regulation. It implies that the amendment was not primarily viewed as a guarantee of state government powers to control state militias.]

Huddleston v. United States •; 1974; 415 U.S. 814; 369
Is the return of a gun from a pawnbroker subject to the same requirements as the sale of a gun from a dealer under the Gun Control Act of 1968 [YES]; Is the intention of the GCA to deprive guns to unauthorized juveniles, fugitives, criminals and the mentally incompetent [YES]; Are hunting, target practice, gun collecting, and the legitimate use of guns for individual protection allowed under the GCA [YES]; Did Congress require commerce in firearms to be channeled through a federalized network of dealers in an effort to halt illegal mail-order and interstate consumer traffic in firearms [YES].

Johnson v. Eisentrager; 1950; 339 U.S. 763; 313
Does the Constitution confer to Nazi spies captured in China during WWII, subsequently convicted of spying on the U.S. and serving their sentences in post-war Germany, the rights it confers to U.S. citizens [NO]; Do the rights of U.S. citizens include among others the right to bear arms as in the 2nd Amendment [YES].

Kepner v. United States; 1904; 195 U.S. 100; 274
Did the adoption in the Philippines of most of the U.S. Bill of Rights omit the right to a trial by jury and the right of the people to bear arms [YES].

Knapp v. Schweitzer; 1958; 357 U.S. 371; 314
Do all the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights apply to the states [NO].

Konigsberg v. State Bar of California; 1961; 366 U.S. 36; 315
Does absolute verbiage (“shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed”) in the 1st and 2nd Amendments allow for some level of regulation, some of which is well established and widely recognized [YES].

Laird v. Tatum; 1972; 408 U.S. 1; 368
Was the 2nd Amendment added to the Constitution to authorize a decentralized militia, guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms [YES].

Lewis v. United States •; 1980; 445 U.S. 55; 401
If a person is prohibited from possessing firearms due to a prior felony conviction, does it matter if the prior conviction was unconstitutional [NO].

Logan v. United States Ð; 1892; 144 U.S. 263; 180
Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee a preexisting right recognized by the Constitution, and not a right created by the Constitution [YES]; Is a prisoner in legal custody entitled to protection “while he is deprived of the ordinary means of defending and protecting himself” [YES].

Lopez, United States v., •; 1995; 514 U.S. 549; 506
Does the Interstate Commerce Clause give Congress the power to regulate personal possession of firearms near local schools [NO]; Is possession of a gun in a school zone an economic activity [NO].

Malloy v. Hogan; 1964; 378 U.S. 1; 319
Is it unsettled as to whether the 14th Amendment applies the first eight amendments to the Bill of Rights against the states [YES]; Did Presser v. Illinois find that the particular guarantees of the 2nd Amendment were not safeguarded from state action [YES].

Maryland v. United States; 1965; 381 U.S. 41; 320
For the purpose of determining liability in an air crash involving a National Guard and commercial aircraft, are National Guard members state employees, and not federal employees, if not specifically called into federal service [YES]; Does it matter if the members were military or civilian members [NO].

Maxwell v. Dow; 1900; 176 U.S. 581; 269
Did the court decide in Presser v. Illinois that the 2nd Amendment is only a limitation on federal power [YES]. Would incorporation of the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens against the states entirely destroy the sovereignty of the states [YES]. (Dissent suggests the Bill of Rights should apply to the states.)

Miller v. State of Texas •; 1894; 153 U.S. 535; 194
Will the Court accept a 2nd Amendment issue on appeal if it wasn’t raised in court prior to the appeal [NO].

Miller, United States v., •; 1939; 307 U.S. 174; 300
Without the presentation of evidence or testimony, can the Court determine whether a short-barreled shotgun, as defined in the 1934 NFA law, is a militia weapon and therefore an arm protected by the 2nd Amendment [NO]; Is possession of arms by the people related to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia [YES].

Miranda v. Arizona; 1966; 384 U.S. 436; 325
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, can there be any rule making or legislation that would abrogate them [NO].

Moore v. E. Cleveland; 1976; 431 U.S. 494; 390
Is the right to keep and bear arms among the type of individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights [YES].

Muscarello v. United States •; 1998; 524 U.S. 125; 600
With regard to a mandatory penalty increase for carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, does “carry” include in the trunk of a car [YES]; Is a drug dealer with a gun in her pocket more dangerous than a drug dealer with a gun in her car trunk [NO].

One Assortment of 89 Firearms, United States v., •; 1984; 465 U.S. 354; 422
Does acquittal from criminal charges for dealing in firearms without a license prevent the government from conducting a separate civil forfeiture action and confiscating the firearms involved [NO]; Is such confiscation a violation of the protection against double jeopardy [NO]; Can the lower threshold of guilt (preponderance of the evidence) allow the government to prevail in the forfeiture, where it could not against the higher threshold (beyond a reasonable doubt) in criminal proceedings [YES]; Is the gun confiscation scheme in the law primarily a civil, non-criminal, remedial action [YES].

Patsone v. Pennsylvania •; 1914; 232 U.S. 138; 279
Can a state prohibit possession of rifles or shotguns for hunting by nonresident aliens without violating due process guarantees [YES]; Does such a prohibition violate specified treaty conditions with Italy [NO].

Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott; 1998; 524 U.S. 357; 626
Are firearms seized in a warrantless search of a paroled felon’s residence admissible as evidence at a parole revocation hearing, even if the seizure violated the 4th Amendment [YES].

Perpich v. Department of Defense •; 1990; 496 U.S. 334; 446
Can members of a state’s organized militia be called into federal service, for training outside the United States, without an imminent emergency and without the state Governor’s permission [YES]; When members of the state National Guard are federalized, are they still members of their state militia [NO]; When they muster out of federal service do they regain their state status [YES].

Planned Parenthood v. Casey; 1992; 505 U.S. 833; 468
Do the protections of the 14th Amendment extend beyond the specifics in the Bill of Rights—such as free speech, press, religion, the right to keep and bear arms and more—and to a freedom from all arbitrary impositions [YES]; Is the right to keep and bear arms among the type of individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights [YES].

Poe v. Ullman; 1961; 367 U.S. 497; 317
(Justices Douglas and Harlan filed dissenting opinions, asserting that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states, a position that was later adopted into law.)

Powell, United States v., •; 1975; 423 U.S. 87; 378
Is a 22-inch-long sawed-off shotgun capable of being concealed on the person and hence illegal to ship through the U.S. Post Office [YES].

Presser v. Illinois •; 1886; 116 U.S. 252; 172
Are all citizens capable of bearing arms the reserve military force in the country [YES]; Can the states deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms, thus depriving the United States of calling forth the militia [NO]; Can states regulate firearms as required for public order [YES].

Printz/Mack v. United States •; 1997; 521 U.S. 898; 556
Does the 10th Amendment prohibit the federal government from commanding local police authorities to implement federal police mandates, and conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers (the Brady case) [YES].

Robertson v. Baldwin; 1897; 165 U.S. 275; 254
Does the Bill of Rights protect “guarantees and immunities” which existed long before the Constitution was adopted [YES]; Are there well-recognized limits on these rights [YES]; Can a state prohibit concealed carry without violating the 2nd Amendment [YES].

Roe v. Wade; 1973; 410 U.S. 113; 369
Is the full scope of liberty protected by the 14th Amendment more than a series of isolated points that includes the right to keep and bear arms [YES].

Rogers v. United States •; 1998; 522 U.S. 252; 594
[A writ to consider “knowing possession” of an NFA “firearm” (a silencer in this case) is dismissed because the case fails to present the issue sufficiently clearly to merit review.]

Rowe v. United States • Ð; 1896; 164 U.S. 546; 247
If a man is provoked into making a minor assault on someone, and then backs off in good faith, is his right to self defense restored if the person he assaulted attacks him with a deadly weapon? [YES]; Is he required to retreat under such circumstances [NO]; Is he under an obligation to try to only wound an attacker when fighting for his life [NO]; Can either party in a mutual combat claim self defense [NO].

Scarborough v. United States •; 1977; 431 U.S. 563; 391
With regard to illegal possession of a firearm by a felon, which is federally banned for guns in or affecting commerce, does it matter when the gun moved in commerce, or when the felon was convicted, as long as both conditions occurred [NO].

Schwimmer, United States v., •; 1929; 279 U.S. 644; 289
If a person is unwilling to take up arms in military service if called upon, should application for naturalized U.S. citizenship be accepted [NO]; Is a fundamental principle of our Constitution that it is the duty of citizens, by force of arms, to defend our government against all enemies whenever necessity arises [YES].

Simpson v. United States; 1978; 435 U.S. 6; 399
Can a bank-robbery sentence, increased under the federal armed-bank-robbery law, also be increased under the separate federal armed-felony law [NO].

Smith v. United States •; 1993; 508 U.S. 223; 470
For the purpose of enhancing the sentence in a drug-trafficking crime to a mandatory 30 years, does the phrase “using a gun,” in connection with drug trafficking, include offering to barter a MAC-10 with a silencer for two ounces of cocaine [YES].

Sonzinsky v. United States •; 1937; 300 U. S. 506; 296
Is a firearm, as defined in the 1934 NFA law, and a firearm dealer, federally taxable [YES].

Spencer v. Kemna; 1998; 523 U.S. 1; 598
[A dissenting opinion says a felon endures tangible harm after his sentence expires because he loses his right to vote or to bear arms, and is at risk for greater penalty in a future offense.].

Staples v. United States •; 1994; 511 U.S. 600; 486
If a person is not aware that a firearm he possesses has been modified to fire as a machinegun, is he guilty of violating the ban on possessing an unregistered NFA weapon [NO].

Starr v. United States Ð; 1894; 153 U.S. 614; 196
If a law officer legally serving a warrant shoots at a suspect without identifying himself, is the suspect justified in shooting back and killing the officer in self defense [YES].

Stearns v. Wood •; 1915; 236 U.S. 75; 283
Does the Court have to interpret the 2nd Amendment or militia aspects of the Constitution for a National Guard officer who has insufficient legal standing to bring a case [NO].

Stinson v. United States; 1993; 508 U.S. 36; 480
Is the commentary to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, stating that possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is not a crime of violence, binding on the federal courts [YES].

Tennessee v. Garner Ð; 1985; 471 U.S. 1; 428
Is the use of deadly force by police to prevent the escape of all felony suspects constitutionally unreasonable [YES]; Is the use of deadly force by a police officer permissible under the 4th Amendment, if necessary to prevent the escape of a felony suspect who threatens the officer with a weapon, or if there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, if, where feasible, some warning has been given [YES].

Terry v. Ohio; 1968; 392 U.S. 1; 334
Is a limited, protective, non-invasive “pat-down” search for weapons, known as a “stop and frisk,” a reasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment if an officer observes suspicious behavior and believes it’s necessary for the safety of the officer or others nearby [YES]; Is the higher standard of probable cause needed to conduct such a search for weapons [NO]; Is a more complete search reasonable under these conditions [NO]; Is such a stop and frisk a severe but allowable intrusion upon cherished personal security [YES].

Thompson v. United States Ð; 1894 ; 155 U.S. 271; 203
Does arming yourself after being threatened, and then traveling the only road in the area where you know your adversary may be, turn a subsequent shooting of the adversary during a confrontation into murder? [NO]; Is arming yourself for legitimate self defense premeditation [NO].

Thompson/Center Arms Co., U.S. v., •; 1992; 504 U.S. 505; 458
Is the definition of “making” an NFA firearm sufficiently clear to require registration and payment of the $200 NFA tax on a parts kit that can be assembled into a legal carbine or into a must-be-registered-to-be-legal short-barreled rifle [NO]; Is a carbine together with all the parts needed to convert it to a machinegun a machinegun [YES]; Is an unassembled silencer a silencer [YES]; Is an unassembled machinegun a machinegun [YES]; Is a pistol and attachable shoulder stock found in different drawers of the same dresser a short-barreled rifle [YES].

Tot v. United States •; 1943; 319 U.S. 463; 306
Does possession of a pistol by a person who has a prior felony conviction constitute proof that the person acquired the gun in interstate commerce, or acquired it after the date of the act that would outlaw such possession [NO].

Trono v. United States; 1905; 199 U.S. 521; 276
Is the right of the people to bear arms omitted in the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, concerning people in the Philippines [YES].

Twining v. New Jersey •; 1908; 211 U.S. 78; 277
Are the right of trial by jury, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment, and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, among the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the States [NO].

United States v. (various names)
Cases beginning with “United States” are listed alphabetically by the named party, q.v., Bass, Bean, Biswell, Cruikshank, Freed, Galioto, Gonzales, Lopez, Miller, One Assortment of 89 Firearms, Powell, Schwimmer, Thompson/Center Firearms Co., Ursery, Verdugo-Urquidez.

Ursery, United States v.,; 1996; 518 U.S. 267; 549
Was the confiscation of guns in the U.S. v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms case remedial, and not criminal in nature, and thus not prohibited under double jeopardy protections [YES].

Verdugo-Urquidez, United States v.,; 1990; 494 U.S. 259; 444
Does the phrase “the people” used in the 2nd Amendment refer to individual members of the American society, the same as it does in the Constitution’s preamble, and its 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments [YES]; Does the 2nd Amendment protect “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” [YES].

Wallace v. United States • Ð; 1896; 162 U.S. 466; 224
Is it up to the jury to decide whether a homicide is murder, manslaughter or justifiable [YES]; Does a perfect right of self defense require blamelessness in the confrontation and an act of necessity only [YES]; Can you claim self defense if you had intentionally brought about a lethal conflict [NO]; Is it up to the jury to decide whether you armed yourself defensively or otherwise [YES]; Is it murder if you enter a quarrel without felonious or malicious intent, and then, under reasonable belief of imminent mortal danger, you kill the assailant [NO]; Does the fact that you deliberately go and arm yourself, for self defense or other innocent purpose, turn a subsequent shooting necessarily from manslaughter to murder [NO].

Sales info here
News Media Fact Sheet
General findings

Contact:
Alan Korwin
BLOOMFIELD PRESS
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 FAX
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for a free full-color catalog

Encourage politicians to pass more laws...
with expiration dates.

MSM wrong again


148 posted on 11/21/2007 4:59:30 AM PST by CHICAGOFARMER ( “If you're not ready to die for it, put the word ''freedom'' out of your vocabulary.” – Malcolm X)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hunterite
typically how fast will the supreme court act on this issue after decided to take a case? I surely hope it isn’t AFTER the primaries.

The Court usually saves "the best for last". That is to say, the important and controversial cases don't get handed back down until the conclusion of the term, sometimes not until the last day, 'round June or July.

I would expect it to be the same with _this_ case. It will become one of the most "awaited" cases of the 21st Century.

IF there is a solid consensus among the Justices one way or the other, the decision may come sooner. But I wouldn't count on it.

Whatever they decide, it will come in time to be a hot campaign issue in '08.

- John

149 posted on 11/21/2007 5:15:23 AM PST by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

spent yesterday zeroing in the iron sights and eotech on my new RR ar. woohoo...now...100yd & 2” groups with iron sights alone! Just gotta love the RR!

Of course I also shot up all the ammo I bought on the 19th.

Which can only mean ONE thing!

time to buy more!

oh...btw...IBrp?


150 posted on 11/21/2007 5:44:08 AM PST by woollyone (entropy extirpates evolution and conservation confirms the Creator blessed forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson