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: AngryJawa
Gentlemen, break out the Solothurns.

And everything else, then SSS.

51 posted on 11/20/2007 10:37:35 AM PST by Doomonyou (Let them eat lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

52 posted on 11/20/2007 10:37:50 AM PST by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
I KNOW that many of you have read this "post" (perhaps) man y times before - - - - regardless I believe it is the focal point of the case to be heard before the SC. Therefored I re-quote for the "xth" time the following . . . . . . . . .

Sorry to bore those who have read this post before. But everytime someone starts butchering the English language and are unable to read the 2nd Amendment as intended . . . . . . . . . I just post this again for their edification.

Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

 

THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus".

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus", has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did "not" give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

*** "July 26, 1991

"Dear Professor Copperud:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, '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.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.

"Sincerely,

"J. Neil Schulman"

***

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

***

[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms "solely" to "a well-regulated militia"?;]

[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" "granted" by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]

[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]

[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]

[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]

[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]

[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence, "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" "only" to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]

[Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

***

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

***************************************************************

I was looking at the "View" section of the LA Times from December 18, 1991 today -- an article on James Michener which my wife Kate had saved for me to read -- when the beginning of Jack Smith's column caught my eye: "Roy Copperud had no sooner died the other day than I had occasion to consult his excellent book, 'American Usage and Style: The Consensus.'"

Thus I learned of the death a few weeks ago of Roy Copperud, the retired USC professor whom I commissioned to do a grammatical analysis of the Second Amendment this past summer. (My article was published in the September 13th issue of "Gun Week".) It seems to have been one of the last projects he worked on. It is certainly one of the most important.

Roy Copperud told me afterwards that he, personally, favored gun control, but his analysis of the Second Amendment made clear that its protections of the right of the people to keep and bear arms were unaffected by its reference to militia. This sort of intellectual and professional honesty is sorely lacking in public discourse today.

In my several letters and phone conversations with Professor Copperud, I found him to be a gentleman of the old school. The planet is a little poorer without him.

J. Neil Schulman December 27, 1991

------------------------------ End of Article ---------------------------------------

53 posted on 11/20/2007 10:38:13 AM PST by Freeper (I was culture in the 60's and now with the Clintons' "running things" I am suddenly Counter-Culture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21901379/

Direct link, no scrolling.


54 posted on 11/20/2007 10:41:10 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Durus

Duncan Hunter on Gun Control from On The Issues:

* Let DC residents keep guns, then maybe ok to let them vote. (Sep 2007)
* Criminals prefer unarmed victims. (Sep 2007)
* Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
* Rated A+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)

Fred Thompson on Gun Control from On The Issues:

* Strongly supports the Second Amendment. (Sep 2007)
* Allowing concealed carry could have limited VA Tech massacre. (Apr 2007)
* Having handguns in your home is a Constitutional right. (Mar 2007)
* Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)


55 posted on 11/20/2007 10:41:18 AM PST by wastedyears (One Marine vs. 550 consultants. Sounds like good odds to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative
Time to go and buy more ammo.

RFN...Run, don't walk.

Also buy up as much reloading components as possible, esp. primers, even if you don't reload.

Rule of thumb:

10 magazines per semi-auto rifle(20 preferable).

4-8 pistol magazines per person, per gun.

4-8 revolver speed loaders per gun, per person.

20-50,000 rounds per belt fed plus about 10 barrels and spare parts kits ( if you are lucky enough to have one).

4-5,000 rounds per person, per gun for battle rifles.

1-2,000 rounds per person, per gun for center-fire pistols;

500 rounds per person, per gun for shotguns.

10,000 rounds+ of .22 cal. LR. Have at LEAST one pistol, one revolver, one bolt action, and one lever action or semi-auto .22 cal. LR. If the shooting starts, the little .22 LR might be the most underestimated rifle on the "urban battlefield".

Misc. gear:

Have 1-5% of your ammo either on stripper clips or in the magazines at <50 percent capacity. For instance. If you have an AR 15 and 2k rounds, have 150 rounds on stripper clips, and the other 50 rounds in 5 magazines. I know thats only 10 rounds per magazine, but it saves your springs for long term storage. In an emergency, you can use the "ready mags", and given time, or a reloader while you maintain security, the rest are for stripper clips.

Next: How do you carry all of this ammo and spare parts?
Easy, have a bug out bag for all your ammo. Go to an army/navy surplus store and barter for alot of those old vietnam alice packs and frames.....stuff your ammo in here to just lug around and throw into your vehicle incase of relocation.

Always have the ability to hide your "stash". Invest in a GPS, a map, pen, paper, trash bags, shovel, pick, saw, compass, and lots of cosmoline and PVC pipe. Learn how to make a "treasure tree" to guide you to where you hide your ammo and spare parts. DO THIS NOW BECAUSE IF ANY GUN IS BANNED, THESE SUPPLIES WILL EVAPORATE! In addition, federal agents may monitor those items used to bury your "now illegal" items immediately before or after a ban through cameras, visa/mc transactions, etc.

Spare parts kits:
You should have a spare spring and pin to every gun you have. Springs and pins are pretty hard to make. You can always mill a piece of metal, but springs and pins are hard to manufacture in a pinch. Try to keep the spare parts compliant with NFA laws since some parts violate the unconstitutional 1934 NFA Act.

Thats about all I can think of on top of my head.....you guys want to comment on "when the balloon goes up" stuff to have?

56 posted on 11/20/2007 10:43:24 AM PST by DCBryan1 (Arm Pilots&Teachers. Build the Wall. Export Illegals. Profile Muslims.Kill all child molesters RFN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

They could weasel out just because D.C. isn’t a state.


57 posted on 11/20/2007 10:43:28 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

Not necessarily, unless the justices can introduce that on their own. DC has already argued in other cases that they are statish enough so that the BOR applies within their boundaries, so they shouldn’t be able to change their mind now.


58 posted on 11/20/2007 10:45:10 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: All

This is a win-win situation.

-If the SC decides to be real Americans and uphold the 2nd ammendment, then we win.

-If the SC goes all Commie on us, then candidates with even the slightest record or whisper of being a gun grabber will lose the Republican nomination.

Uhhh, 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.


59 posted on 11/20/2007 10:46:21 AM PST by Hunterite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd

I hope you are right.


60 posted on 11/20/2007 10:47:10 AM PST by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hunterite
Uhhh, 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.

If we are lucky, the ruling will be released prior to the conventions.

61 posted on 11/20/2007 10:48:18 AM 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 59 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Would this have implications for other cities or is DC a special case given it’s unique status?


62 posted on 11/20/2007 10:48:26 AM PST by DemEater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

After the Dems, but before the Pubbies. Don’t want to give the Dems time to reposition, do we?


63 posted on 11/20/2007 10:49:26 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Don’t want to give the Dems time to reposition, do we?

That would never stop a Clinton anyways.

64 posted on 11/20/2007 10:50:42 AM 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 63 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?””

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.

65 posted on 11/20/2007 10:51:02 AM PST by gridlock (Recycling is the new Religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

No, but an individual will have less success repackaging themselves than the party would if they could choose an entirely different candidate.


66 posted on 11/20/2007 10:52:08 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Be Ever Vigilant!


67 posted on 11/20/2007 10:52:12 AM PST by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kidd
I have a good feeling about this.

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

It takes four justices to grant certiorari--to take a case. If the lefties voted for it, it means they think they have a majority for eliminating the second amendment. I'd be surprised if the conservatives voted to take it as the lower court decision was correct.

68 posted on 11/20/2007 10:53:08 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
No, but an individual will have less success repackaging themselves than the party would if they could choose an entirely different candidate.

The Democrats have never been stopped from substituting candidates after the votes have been counted.

69 posted on 11/20/2007 10:53:54 AM 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 66 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

I have my old SWAT bags to carry stuff in. I have two survival boxes and lots of stuff buried out on the farm.

By last inventory I have 5K+ rounds of .223, 300 rounds .300 WinMag, 1500 12 ga. 00 buck, over 1000 rounds .357 Sig but am fixing to get more, 500+ .45 ACP, 300 rounds .45 Long colt, 300 rounds .357 mag, and 1000 rounds of .22 mag ( for those time you want to be quiet ) I also love this little rifle it is a nail driver out to 80-100 yards.

I reload all but .45 ACP., .223 and .22.


70 posted on 11/20/2007 10:55:11 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

But do you think the lefties already think they know how Kennedy will vote? And if they do think that, are they justified? This of course is assuming we know how the other eight will vote, which I don’t think we do, for reasons already mentioned.


71 posted on 11/20/2007 10:55:14 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: All

http://www.ontheissues.org

Duncan Hunter:

* Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
* Rated A+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)

Fred Thompson:

* Allowing concealed carry could have limited VA Tech massacre. (Apr 2007)
* Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

According to this data.

Hunter’s record looks like it has more OOMPH! behind it. Removing liability to gun manufacturers, lessening waiting period.

Thompson voting around the issue of Gun-Shows.

Anyone have anymore data?


72 posted on 11/20/2007 10:55:31 AM PST by Hunterite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

They’ll deal with it in a way that doesn’t definitively define an individual right nor deny the individual right.

I’d lay book on it.


73 posted on 11/20/2007 10:56:20 AM PST by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Excellent point, but the one they had to get out of the way has never before been a Clinton, so I’m not sure precedent holds.


74 posted on 11/20/2007 10:56:54 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: coydog
Of course, they would have to realize that an unfavorable verdict would have a good portion of the population riled up. <

They might get riled up, but won't do anything about it. An unfavorable verdict will lead to an immediate ban of handguns in almost every city in this country. It will be an end run around for the gun banners.

The sheeple will sleep.

75 posted on 11/20/2007 10:56:58 AM PST by unixfox (The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole
Thompson is NOT neutral on the 2nd amendment. He wrote a piece for Nation Review back in May about this specific case (I think it may have been one of his Paul Harvey fill in appearances):

Second Kates

By Fred Thompson

If you care about constitutional law, and everybody should, the big news is that it looks as if the Supreme Court is going to hear a Second Amendment case some time next year. The event that sparked this legal fuse was a case brought by six D.C. residents who simply wanted functional firearms in their homes for self-defense. In response, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District’s 31-year-old gun ban — one of the strictest in the nation.

Our individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, may finally be confirmed by the high Court; but this means that we’re going to see increasing pressure on the Supreme Court from anti-gun rights activists who want the Constitution reinterpreted to fit their prejudices. The New York Times has already fired the first broadside.

A few days ago, the Gray Lady published a fascinating account of the case — fascinating but fundamentally flawed. In it, the central argument about the Second Amendment is pretty accurately described. Specifically, it is between those who see it as an individual right versus those who see it as a collective states’ right having more to do with the National Guard than the people.

Unfortunately, the article falsely portrays the individual-right argument as some new interpretation held only by a few fringe theorists. The truth is very different, as civil-rights attorney and gun-law expert Don Kates has pointed out recently.

From the enactment of the Bill of Rights in 1791 until the 20th century, no one seriously argued that the Second Amendment dealt with anything but an individual right — along with all other nine original amendments. Kates writes that not one court or commentator denied it was a right of individual gun owners until the last century. Judges and commentators in the 18th and 19th century routinely described the Second Amendment as a right of individuals. And they expressly compared it to the other rights such as speech, religion, and jury trial.

The Times has simply replayed theories invented by the 20th-century gun-control movement. Their painting of the individual-right interpretation as a minority view is equally fanciful.

Kates writes that, “Over 120 law review articles have addressed the Second Amendment since 1980. The overwhelming majority affirm that it guarantees a right of individual gun owners. That is why the individual right view is called the ‘standard model’ view by supporters and opponents alike. With virtually no exceptions, the few articles to the contrary have been written by gun control advocates, mostly by people in the pay of the anti-gun lobby.”

Kates goes further, writing that “a very substantial proportion” of the articles supporting individual gun rights are by scholars who would have been happy to find evidence that guns could be banned. When guns were outlawed in D.C., crime and murder rates skyrocketed. Still, the sentiment exists and must be countered with facts. All of this highlights why it is so important to appoint judges who understand that their job is to interpret the law, as enacted by will of the people, rather than make it up as they go along.


Listen to an audio version of this commentary
here.



76 posted on 11/20/2007 10:59:09 AM PST by Phsstpok (When you don't know where you are, but you don't care, you're not lost, you're exploring!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Another post is also in breaking news with the entire story. That one was kept in Breaking News.
77 posted on 11/20/2007 10:59:44 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

Then, only sheeple and the criminals that prey on them (I count their governments under that definition) will have the cities, and they become no-go areas for anyone else.


78 posted on 11/20/2007 11:04:30 AM PST by coydog (Keep Canada green - paint a Liberal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Hunterite
Uhhh, 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.

A while. Arguments in March, probably, with no decision until June.

79 posted on 11/20/2007 11:05:08 AM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
One plus will be that if the debate moderators are honest, the next debates will touch on this issue for both RATS and Republicans.
80 posted on 11/20/2007 11:10:27 AM PST by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

When the balloon goes up?


81 posted on 11/20/2007 11:16:05 AM PST by wastedyears (One Marine vs. 550 consultants. Sounds like good odds to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; Congressman Billybob

Billybob,

I hope you don’t mind if I ping you to this thread. Being FR’s resident constitutional lawyer (and future congressman), I and others would like your take on this.


82 posted on 11/20/2007 11:17:49 AM PST by GreenLanternCorps (Thompson for President: 2008, 2012: Jindal for President 2016, 2020)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

I am expecting a mixed victory out of this. I expect that they will find the 2A was intended to be an individual right, but that local jurisdictions can impose “reasonable restrictions”.


83 posted on 11/20/2007 11:20:52 AM PST by Sender (You are the weapon. What you hold in your hand is just a tool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

“A while. Arguments in March, probably, with no decision until June.”

************

Oh. :( Maybe enough time for a 3rd party talk then.


84 posted on 11/20/2007 11:21:13 AM PST by Hunterite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

I am afraid you are right. It may not be now, but it will be soon.


85 posted on 11/20/2007 11:23:32 AM PST by MattinNJ (I'm pulling for Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter-...but I'd vote for Rudy against Hillary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
Don't worry if you don't know the phrase. More importantly, you will definitely know what it means if it ever happens.

Personally, I give it a 5 percent chance. In 20 years, I would say 20 percent chance.

86 posted on 11/20/2007 11:26:02 AM PST by DCBryan1 (Arm Pilots&Teachers. Build the Wall. Export Illegals. Profile Muslims.Kill all child molesters RFN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

I think the lefty justices granted certiorari because they had nothing to lose by taking it.

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.


87 posted on 11/20/2007 11:29:29 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

Aw crap, I know now.

=/


88 posted on 11/20/2007 11:30:09 AM PST by wastedyears (One Marine vs. 550 consultants. Sounds like good odds to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
But do you think the lefties already think they know how Kennedy will vote? And if they do think that, are they justified? This of course is assuming we know how the other eight will vote, which I don’t think we do, for reasons already mentioned.

The four conservatives are very likely to vote for an individual right. They are all more-or-less originalists and the historic record of the original meaning of the 2nd is very strong (even convincing lefties like Alan Dershowitz).

The four lefties are certain to vote against an individual right because, well, they are lefties and they don't care what the constitution says or means. They just do what they think is right and any well-indoctrinated leftie thinks guns are only for folks who have badges.

Kennedy, who knows? I'm very uncomfortable hanging the second amendment on such a weak reed.

The one hopeful sign here is that the issue posed by the court is very narrow--it is phrased to deal with just the individual vs collective issue for private use in the home in Washington DC. This means the supremes are not ready to bite off, for example, concealed carry. It also means that the conservatives probably crafted the issue to be narrow because they thought Kennedy was going to have a hard time with the "guns on the street" problem.

It's also a very narrow issue posed in that DC is Federal Jurisdiction. So the judges don't have to decide if the second amendment applies to the States.

The narrowness of the definition of the issue has Robert's footprints all over it. That is the one good indicator I can see.

If we win this case, we still have a long way to go--concealed carry, does the second amemdment apply to the states, etc? If we lose, it's a complete and total loss--there is no second amendment left because the individual/collective issue will have been decided against us and a collective right is meaningless.

89 posted on 11/20/2007 11:33:47 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Sender
Given that it's focused on possession in the home, they're gonna have an awfully hard time concocting "reasonable restrictions" - especially considering the reasoning behinde Roe.
90 posted on 11/20/2007 11:38:11 AM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: MrB
MrB said: "They’ll deal with it in a way that doesn’t definitively define an individual right nor deny the individual right."

There is no practical way for a single Supreme Court decision to fully define the limits of the right.

But ANY modification of the DC laws whatever is only consistent with an individual right. The court WILL address the DC law sufficiently to provide guidance to DC as to what part, if any, of their existing ban is permitted.

It's hard for me to imagine how the Supreme Court could speak to the ban without also speaking to the requirement for registration, since the ban has been implemented as a refusal to register.

Nobody is required to register books or newspapers. I don't see where the limits of an individual right could include detailed records on the gun ownership of every citizen in the US.

If, in addition to outlawing general firearm registration schemes by the federal government, the Supreme Court also uses the word "fundamental" to describe the protected right, then many state laws will be teetering. After a lifetime of increasing infringements, I hope to see a forceful re-establishment of the right to keep and bear arms as it existed for the first century and a half of the Republic.

91 posted on 11/20/2007 11:41:20 AM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath

Can you mention the probable timeline of events again? Thanks.


92 posted on 11/20/2007 11:42:05 AM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freeper

I love that, thanks!


93 posted on 11/20/2007 11:43:29 AM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

Keep your powder dry, boys.


94 posted on 11/20/2007 11:45:09 AM PST by absalom01 (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rednek
This case scares me to death...imagine the possibilities. The court strikes down the 2nd ammendment as an individual right and then the evil one is elected President.

I'm thinking that maybe a few people in the government are looking at a Hiullary President and are terrified. And now they want the Second Amendment ruling as insurance against a Stalinette.

95 posted on 11/20/2007 11:46:14 AM PST by Centurion2000 (False modesty is as great a sin as false pride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rednek
Fear the government that fears your guns!

Actually, we should fear the government that doesn't fear our guns, and is confident and cocky enough to try to take them away.

96 posted on 11/20/2007 11:46:31 AM PST by shekkian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

This is an open comm channel. COMSEC


97 posted on 11/20/2007 11:49:57 AM PST by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1; Travis McGee; Eaker; Squantos; wardaddy

I don’t recall where but last week I was reading about the idea of *double springing* magazines used in semi auto or full auto weapons. Yes, putting two springs in a magazine especially if the weapon tends to jam as the magazine empties. That will help guarantee that the cartridges are going to be at the top of the mag when needed.

Makes sense to me.


98 posted on 11/20/2007 11:52:28 AM 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 56 | View Replies]

To: RKV

Radio Free America Announcer: It’s 11:59 on Radio Free America; this is Uncle Sam, with music, and the truth until dawn. Right now I’ve got a few words for some of our brothers and sisters in the occupied zone: “the chair is against the wall, the chair is against the wall”, “john has a long mustache, john has a long mustache”. It’s twelve o’clock, American, another day closer to victory. And for all of you out there, on, or behind the line, this is your song.
[the Battle Hymn of the Republic begins to play] (/Red Dawn)


99 posted on 11/20/2007 11:52:52 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
If the SCOTUS decides against us, and the majority decision cites international law...........all bets will be off.


100 posted on 11/20/2007 11:54:50 AM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | 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