Posted on 03/18/2008 9:25:56 AM PDT by NinoFan
http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
Roberts is hitting on age requirements. They are giving the case to Gura and he’s choking a bit. Come on Gura, get it together!!!
Vermont carry.
That’s what I want.
If you can get drafted into the military at 18....
That's debateable. I don't mind yanking rights if someone screws up, but not sure about general licensing.
Agreed, licensing leads to Governmental control that is too infringing.
“....can they withdraw?”
No. Both then, and all cases heard thereafter, are bound to the legal precedent set by the decision. Only in certain instances can an amendment to the Constitution, a law enacted by Congress, or a USSC’s overturn reverse it - the latter being less likely since a majority of all cases are based upon precedents and any challenge to this in particular would most likely be resolved long before ever reaching a USSC appeals docket.
This ruling has FAR REACHING implications. Read Lincoln’s First Inaugural:
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.”
Licensing for journalists and newspapers?
Licensing for voting?
I’m against licensing period, since it is an “infringement” of the right to keep and bear and carry, in and of itself.
It’s the curve balls! Gura slips on the first one then catches his feet and does better in a few minutes.
Regarding High Crime
“All the more reasons to allow handguns, so the homeowner can defend themselves.”
Hit it out of the park!
Looking at crime stats is Dred Scott reasoning - looking at the presumed outcome of a decision rather than the principle underlying the decision.
I don’t believe it. The court is leading Gura’s argument. They are holding him up left and right... pun intended!
Today’s case is about the important constitutional question not the side issues. If the Court holds that the 2A deals with the rights of an individual independent of a militia and in so doing strikes down the DC handgun ban, it’ll be a huge victory.
I’d be OK with being forced to debate age requirements and such at the state legislature level if it meant we got a major constitutional victory.
Should speech and religion be licensed?
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.