Posted on 11/20/2007 10:12:34 AM PST by Pyro7480
If we are lucky, the ruling will be released prior to the conventions.
Would this have implications for other cities or is DC a special case given it’s unique status?
After the Dems, but before the Pubbies. Don’t want to give the Dems time to reposition, do we?
That would never stop a Clinton anyways.
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.
No, but an individual will have less success repackaging themselves than the party would if they could choose an entirely different candidate.
Be Ever Vigilant!
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.
The Democrats have never been stopped from substituting candidates after the votes have been counted.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A while. Arguments in March, probably, with no decision until June.
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.