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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-170 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-170 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