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

Skip to comments.

DC vs. Heller Ruling to be Issued June 26
Supreme Court ^

Posted on 06/25/2008 7:33:33 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

The DC gun ban case ruling will be issued tomorrow, Thursday, June 26. Stay tuned!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: banglist; dcvsheller; guns; heller; judiciary; scotus; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last
To: Antoninus
The courts need to be brought under control. If Congress won't do it, the people have to.

...by doing what exactly?

We, the people, had all better pray with all our might that this be resolved through political, constitutional means. Any other method will be ugly and murderous beyond description. There are NO assurances of anything approaching a normal national life after such, um, unpleasantness.

All that said, our government is just begging such a scenario by their actions.

51 posted on 06/25/2008 9:22:18 AM PDT by AngryJawa ({IDPA, NRA} All Hail John Moses Browning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: rahbert
Sorry for the triplicate posts!

Maybe the sear on your mouse is worn? The BATFE will be showing up at your door for unlawful possession of an unregistered, untaxed, full auto speech device.

52 posted on 06/25/2008 9:26:16 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The ruling will be proclaimed in the Lamestream media as a victory for gun rights but the actual ruling will say, yes, individuals do have a right to keep and bear arms but “reasonable” restrictions apply. Reasonable meaning anything the government says and therefore you have no rights. None.


53 posted on 06/25/2008 9:26:28 AM PDT by Roninf5-1 (If ignorance is bliss, why are so many Americans on anti-depressants?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Roninf5-1
A ruling like that could set off the radicals quite easily.

The question posed to the Court are quite clear and the questions asked by the Justices are all leaning "individual Right" and "strict scrutiny".

As long as they keep their mouths shut on other topics, like "reasonable restrictions", and just answer the lower courts questions, we get a "win".

54 posted on 06/25/2008 9:36:31 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Very bad feeling about this ruling.


55 posted on 06/25/2008 9:43:09 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; All
Looking at the Courts last few sessions, all the liberal decisions come early in the final weeks of the term. All the controversial opinions that concern Constitutional issues come on the last days.

Heller is in that same mode. For those of you wondering why ot has taken so long, the reasoning is very simple. The SCOTUS hears the arguments, adjourns to read on their own, discuss among themselves in a less formal setting, and come to consensus on how it should be ruled. It is not a momentary judgement.

The Chief Justice assigns the opinions to one of the justices in the majority and the minority, or he keeps the opinion for himself to write.

Now, as far as the no death penalty in the case of rape of a child, I believe the ruling is correct. Nothing short of murder should carry the death penalty. As abhorrent as the crime was to the child, there is not a death involved.

It also means the convicted rapist will get re-sentenced and then put into the general populatioon, where the future costs of keeping him on death row will be allevieated very quickly.

So there is an upside to the ruling.

56 posted on 06/25/2008 9:46:45 AM PDT by Pistolshot (When you let what you are define who you are, you create divisiveness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
Their Exxon ruling was a pleasant surprise as well. Limiting punitive damages to equal actual damage done? Tossing out the mutli-billion judgment and knocking it back to what, $500 million?

Someone broke out the champagne at Exxon headquarters for sure.

57 posted on 06/25/2008 9:50:11 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: NFHale
"Stock up either way. It isn’t over, even if they decide for us. The struggle for your liberty and freedom only ends when you stop breathing."

As "An Old Woman" said earlier today, "It doesn't matter what they say, we are keeping it anyway". which means I will probably get another 20 pounds of gun powder and some more bullets.

Semper Fi
An Old Man


58 posted on 06/25/2008 9:50:41 AM PDT by An Old Man ("The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress." Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

I think we win 7-2 in that the court will hold that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. However, I think it will only be 5-4 that the DC ban violates that right.

Ginsburg and Breyer will dissent but agree that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. Stevens and Souter will dissent saying that it protects only a collective right.

I expect Kennedy to write the majority opinion, with Scalia and/or Thomas writing their own concurrances.


59 posted on 06/25/2008 9:56:23 AM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
Nothing short of murder should carry the death penalty.

Article III, Section 3, U.S. Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, . ... .

Congress, NOT the Supreme Court.... Traitors should be hanged, or shot if they happen to be military personnel.

60 posted on 06/25/2008 9:56:40 AM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
That punative damage amount was extreme and should have been reduced. Exxon did more to correct the problems and issues a drunk captain caused than necessary.

The problem is all the 'greens' and liberals think Big Oil, is bad, no matter what they do. It's the reason we don't have refining or production capabilities, even on the leased land.

My Heller prediction is 7-2, with Kennedy writing for the majority, or Thomas. Ginsberg will write for the minority.

Kennedy was pretty passionate at the hearing about the 2A and Ginsberg tried to lead the DC lawyer down the 'regulated' path, but he was too stupid to take the cues. A first year law student would have looked like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. next to that guy.

61 posted on 06/25/2008 9:58:53 AM PDT by Pistolshot (When you let what you are define who you are, you create divisiveness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

It will be interesting to see whether the more liberal justices who agree that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right apply strict scrutiny to the DC gun law or try and argue that it isn’t a fundamental right and deserves a lower level of scrutiny. The fact that it’s a right named in the Bill of Rights makes that quite a stretch, but for a “living constitutionalist” like Breyer, anything’s possible.

Also, while I can’t imagine any rational person believing that the DC gun ban is narrowly tailored to serving a compelling government interest, there seem to be at least a few constitutional scholars, like Lawrence Tribe, who believe just that.


62 posted on 06/25/2008 10:02:40 AM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

I predict a gobbledygook ruling that maintains the status quo.


63 posted on 06/25/2008 10:02:40 AM PDT by aomagrat (Gun owners who vote for democrats are too stupid to own guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight
I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

I'll be stopping in at Sportsmen's Warehouse on the way home just in case...

64 posted on 06/25/2008 10:11:48 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

7-2 very unlikely. Probably 5-4, but it could possibly end up being 6-3.

Basing a thought on a ruling based on how they question the witnesses doesn’t always work. Sure, it looked like it would be 7-2 for us based on that, but it is extremely unlikely to actually work out that way.


65 posted on 06/25/2008 10:13:26 AM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
Nothing short of murder should carry the death penalty.

With due respect for your opinion, the people of Louisiana decided otherwise.

66 posted on 06/25/2008 10:15:52 AM PDT by HoosierHawk (Hypocrisy does not apply to liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: AngryJawa
We, the people, had all better pray with all our might that this be resolved through political, constitutional means. Any other method will be ugly and murderous beyond description. There are NO assurances of anything approaching a normal national life after such, um, unpleasantness.

The most analagous similar situation was the Finnish Civil War of 1918, in which Finland's Communists attempted to follow the example of their pals in Russia and sieze control of Finland's government. A series of events led to the actual bloodletting, and to this day Finn's don't even agree on the mame for the poeriod, but the dates generally given for the affray are January 27, 1918 to May 15, 1918.

The results after that four-month shootemup were several: the Reds lost, and about 1% of the population of Finland died in those four months. Note that the U.S. Civil War of 1861-1865 delivered a butcher's bill of around 2% of the population of the US at that time, though the Finns would presumably caught up in four more months. There were a couple of reasons, but the Winter conditions certainly didn't help matters any.

Too consider another point likely to be common to that civil war of the XX Century and anything similar forthcoming in the XXIst: Only about one death in four was a direct combat casualty, offset by the other three-fourths of the deaths often by intentional starvation or freezing in the prison camps and POW cages, and summary executions of traitors in the field. Indeed, one technique of the day was to let young recruits who'd had no previous military experience get some by executing condemned prisoners with their bayonets, helpfully also saving on rifle ammo. To this day, globalist leftists worldwide have had serious concerns about military weapons with bayonet lugs in the hands of those they'd rule, as happened during the period of the now-defunct U.S. *Assault Weapons Ban;* now you know why.

So if it comes to that, yes, you're right: ugly and murderous will indeed be the order of the day. The current population estimate is around 304,434,774. Accordingly, a period of intensity equal to that in Finland in 1918 could be expected to result in a number of at least somewhere around 30,443,477 fatal casualties. If, of course, it only lasts for four months....


67 posted on 06/25/2008 10:19:10 AM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk
And with all due respect the SCOTUS said they were wrong.

I know I find the crime to be abhorrent and disgusting, but not deserving of the death penalty. Life with no parole and insertion into the general population will take care of that. saves a lot of money and time that way. And he'll be just as dead.

68 posted on 06/25/2008 10:23:19 AM PDT by Pistolshot (When you let what you are define who you are, you create divisiveness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Good idea.

I don’t know which liberal position is more ludicrous: the Lawrence Tribe position that the DC gun ban essentially passes strict scrutiny, or the Erwin Chemerinsky position that infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is only entitled to rational basis review.

Even now that they finally agree with us on the construction of the 2nd Amendment, liberal academia can’t help but shamelessly twist 50 years of constitutional jurisprudence to attain their desired policy result. Of course, it just confirms my suspicion that they don’t teach law at Duke or Harvard anymore.


69 posted on 06/25/2008 10:23:34 AM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy; Perdogg; DaveLoneRanger

I seem to recall that during oral arguments a moderate (Kennedy?) was pretty much mocking the DC lawyers, saying that if we applied their standards to the 1st Amendment, we could ban books as long as they were under a certain size.

I have a bad feeling about this, but I think my bad feeling is from the stakes, not from a large chance that we will lose. It’s just that if this doesn’t go our way there will be no stopping the gun grabbers.


70 posted on 06/25/2008 10:23:34 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Man, I hope they’re right!


71 posted on 06/25/2008 10:25:39 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
It’s just that if this doesn’t go our way there will be no stopping the gun grabbers.

There's always the Boston Common solution. As long as we don't end up boxed in like Warsaw Ghetto, we could still correct things.

72 posted on 06/25/2008 10:28:20 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
Life with no parole and insertion into the general population will take care of that. saves a lot of money and time that way. And he'll be just as dead.

But that's really taking the matter out of the hands of the state and I don't think that SCOTUS was right to do that.

SCOTUS is so limiting the use of the death penalty that, I believe, they'll eventually outlaw it altogether, again.

And it's not their call, or, at least, shouldn't be.

73 posted on 06/25/2008 10:33:10 AM PDT by HoosierHawk (Hypocrisy does not apply to liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

The stakes are big either way, but one thing to keep in mind is that even the best possible outcome will not stop state and local governments from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, as the 2nd Amendment does not directly apply to the states. That will require a holding that that right is incorporated by the 14th Amendment, which the court can’t do in the case, since the 14th Amendment isn’t at issue.

From what I hear, the plan will be to make the next test case a challenge of Chicago’s gun laws. This is because Chicago’s gun laws are almost as bad as DC’s, Chicago will place the 14th Amendment at issue, and because the 7th Circuit (which sits in Chicago) is among the most conservative of the US Courts of Appeals.


74 posted on 06/25/2008 10:37:44 AM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842

I really couldn’t say. Heller isn’t the only opinion being delayed, but I’m not sure what the process is behind releasing a decision on one day or not.


75 posted on 06/25/2008 10:39:57 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Gun-free zones aren't. Visit ConcealedCampus.com for more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

Buy me an AR-15, extra clip, some ammo, and a 15+1 round Glock and I’ll pay you when I get the money. :-P


76 posted on 06/25/2008 10:41:27 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Gun-free zones aren't. Visit ConcealedCampus.com for more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot

Yes, but how is it cruel and unusual punishment to execute a criminal with lethal injection for child rape, but appropriate (and not cruel ) to subject the same guy to a punishment where he will suffer months or years of physical abuse, rape or being murdered with a shiv, possibly all three?

Your post reminds me of George Ryan’s commutations, specifically one case where the criminal being taken off death row and put into general population was on death row because he had raped and murdered a 3 year old boy. Yeah, Ryan really showed how the state was concerned about cruel punishments there!

If someone deserves death they should be executed. If not, they should be incarcerated in a way that doesn’t make some thug a de facto state torturer and executioner. Having it both ways is cruelty.


77 posted on 06/25/2008 10:42:22 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: AmericanHunter

I carry a revolver, mate. No safety.


78 posted on 06/25/2008 10:43:12 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Gun-free zones aren't. Visit ConcealedCampus.com for more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

I hope you’re right, not just because I hope we’ll win, but because it will be fun to watch Dick Daley sputter like Daffy Duck in the midst of a tantrum.


79 posted on 06/25/2008 10:44:21 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: AngryJawa; Antoninus

We have a long way to go before things reach that kind of boiling point.


80 posted on 06/25/2008 10:44:54 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Gun-free zones aren't. Visit ConcealedCampus.com for more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I carry a revolver, mate. No safety.

There's always a "safety": it just happens to reside between your ears. ;-)

81 posted on 06/25/2008 10:48:03 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (Peace is Not The Question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I predict a 5-4 (possibly 6-3) mealy-mouthed decision that overturns the TOTAL ban on guns in the District, but leaves the door open to further abuses of our 2nd Amendment Rights because it will NOT declare that citizens have an absolute right to own, carry and use firearms for the purposes of defending themselves.


82 posted on 06/25/2008 10:48:09 AM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
I have a bad feeling about this, but I think my bad feeling is from the stakes, not from a large chance that we will lose.
My sentiments exactly.

We could also declare that the right of "the people" to speak freely is only allowable if there is a specific group of "free speakers". And there have to be more than one of "the people" in a given locale before we can prohibit forced quartering.
83 posted on 06/25/2008 10:49:01 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Gun-free zones aren't. Visit ConcealedCampus.com for more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
The right of the state to define what crimes should recieve the death penalty should be controlled, or would you accept the death penalty for drunk driving or jay-walking, if you take it to the extremes?

The force of law needs to be tempered not with emotion, but with restraint and careful contemplation of punishment.

84 posted on 06/25/2008 10:57:41 AM PDT by Pistolshot (When you let what you are define who you are, you create divisiveness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: AngryJawa
...by doing what exactly?

How about a million angry gun owners marching (peacefully) on DC. Do you think that would get anyone's attention?

If Heller goes the wrong way, do you think that the NRA and allied groups would have trouble raising that many folks?
85 posted on 06/25/2008 10:57:55 AM PDT by Antoninus (Every second spent bashing McCain is time that could be spent helping Conservatives downticket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: montag813
If you'd heard the oral arguments and Justices' queries on-line, you might not be quite so worried. I'm going to guess it will be at least 6-3 in favor of an individual RKBA, but allowing for local gun restrictions for which a rational justification can be found.
86 posted on 06/25/2008 10:57:58 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (Peace is Not The Question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Prediction

The SCOTUS will issue the following ruling regarding Heller vs the District of Columbia.

The intent of the framers of the United States Constitution was to allow the Citizens of our nation to own and bear arms.  It is therefore the majority opinion of this court, that the right of citizens of the United States to own and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.

It is also the majority opinion of this court, that representative government bodies in the United States do have the ability to single out certain weapons that are a danger to society, and to limit or forbid their ownership by the citizens they represent.

It is also the majority opinion of this court that representative government bodies in the United States do have the ability to control the ammunition that would be used in guns owned by the citizens of the United States.

Yes, I believe we will get a partial ruling we want.  And yes, I do believe the district, state and local gun grabbing government bodies will get the partial ruling they want.  And gun rights will essentially disappear as a result.

We appointed seven of nine of the sitting SCOTUS justices.  And folks wonder why I want RINO hunting season extended.

87 posted on 06/25/2008 10:58:51 AM PDT by DoughtyOne ( I say no to the Hillary Clinton wing of the Republican party. Not now or ever, John McCain...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

It isn’t going to happen but it’s fun to fantasize - what if it were a unanimous decision that the Second actually means, word for word, what it says? Can you say “media firestorm”? Could you see liberal heads exploding? Would Chuckie Schumer pee his pants...again? Oh, what a wonderful world it would be... ;-)


88 posted on 06/25/2008 10:58:58 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
The right of the state to define what crimes should recieve the death penalty should be controlled, or would you accept the death penalty for drunk driving or jay-walking, if you take it to the extremes?

Why do five unelected judges on the Supreme Court have the right to make that call for every state in the Union? That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
89 posted on 06/25/2008 10:59:27 AM PDT by Antoninus (Every second spent bashing McCain is time that could be spent helping Conservatives downticket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

The SCOTUS didn’t make the call for every state, they made the call on one case from one state. The other pending state laws or cases will have to be reassessed.


90 posted on 06/25/2008 11:01:48 AM PDT by Pistolshot (When you let what you are define who you are, you create divisiveness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I'm confused?
  1. SCOTUS does not have a 'blog'
  2. The linked site is ".com", SCOTUS is ".gov"
  3. I went to this ".com site" and there's nothing saying Heller will be issued tomorrow. So where did that Headline come from?
  4. On the Official SCOTUS website Heller isn't even mentioned.
  5. What is this website that is posted as "Supreme Court"? Is it run from some lawyers basement?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass but this whole thing looks very misleading.
91 posted on 06/25/2008 11:02:44 AM PDT by Condor51 (I have guns in my nightstand because a Cop won't fit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: archy
Archy,

"30,443,477 fatal casualties"

I know that you do not throw numbers around carelessly, but; that's a really large number. Can you justify that by means other than the proportion of one population to another?

Semper Fi
An Old Man

92 posted on 06/25/2008 11:03:34 AM PDT by An Old Man ("The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress." Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
We have a long way to go before things reach that kind of boiling point.

Bread and circuses are powerful cooling factors.

But sometimes the pot can boil over in a hurry if you're distracted. Attention must be paid.

93 posted on 06/25/2008 11:03:57 AM PDT by AngryJawa ({IDPA, NRA} All Hail John Moses Browning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Oh, and in my experience, “reasonable restrictions” is what liberals say when they want to invent a lowered strict scrutiny standard for rights they don’t like. Talk about something like the “right to privacy”, and suddenly that talk disappears.


94 posted on 06/25/2008 11:09:35 AM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Heller loses, 5-4. Kennedy has had a recent Leftist re-conversion. His recent decisions have all been for Big Government and against Freedom.


95 posted on 06/25/2008 11:11:00 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

We’re almost there already. I think the frog pot is a lot hotter than you think it is...


96 posted on 06/25/2008 11:11:11 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

“Reasonable restrictions” should fail the “shall not be infringed” test pretty damn quickly.


97 posted on 06/25/2008 11:12:25 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
At the link, "At the close of Wednesday’s public session, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., announced that the Court will issue all remaining decisions for the Term at 10 a.m. Thursday. The test case on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a gun is among those remaining (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290). The others still pending are cases on the constitutionality of the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment” on campaign finance (Davis v. FEC, 07-320), and on federal regulators’ power to undo wholesale energy sales contracts (Morgan Stanley Capital v. Public Utility District, 06-1457, and a companion case)."

SCOTUSblog is a pretty reputable site that covers the Supreme Court. Also, they aren't the only ones reporting this. I've also gotten an email from the Federalist Society which also says that the Heller decision is being announced tomorrow. It has also been reported at the Washington Post's DC Wire. Rest assured that this information is accurate.
98 posted on 06/25/2008 11:16:14 AM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice
This is the cities vs. the rest of us

This sums-up current national politics. The Blue Cesspool Cities forcing the rest of us to live by their rules and support them in style.

99 posted on 06/25/2008 11:16:57 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
How about a million angry gun owners marching (peacefully) on DC. Do you think that would get anyone's attention?

If Heller goes the wrong way, do you think that the NRA and allied groups would have trouble raising that many folks?

As much as I would love to see and be a part of that march, I think it'd be a lead pipe cinch that the organizers of an armed march on DC would find themselves the recipients of FBI and BATFE interest in record time.

The NRA (I'm a member) would never do anything as radical as you suggest. To their shame, they're well known for going-along-to-get-along and will compromise (IMO) too easily. They're a political institution that will do nothing to damage their access money and to the powerful. But warts and all, they're still the best game in town for RKBA folks at this time - sort of like the Republican party.

100 posted on 06/25/2008 11:18:59 AM PDT by AngryJawa ({IDPA, NRA} All Hail John Moses Browning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 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