Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

AP via SFGate ^ | 11/20/7 | MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

[WackySam]

Lawyers, guns, and money.

[From One - Many]

five to four split is not good, no matter which way the decision goes.

[Pistolshot]

The NRA endorsement will be HUGE for whoever gets it, and they will endorse a candidate earlier this time around.

[drpix]

meant that in terms of a middle ground between the various circuit decisions

[ctdonath2]

There is a difference.

“State-regulated” = doing the state’s bidding.
“Well-regulated” = equipped, competent, functional, coordinated - but not necessarily under gov’t control.

[Myrddin]

After Kelo vs. New London “private” property can now be seized for “public use” for private businesses or simply to increase tax revenue.

Incorrect. The SC did something far worse. They permitted seizure of private property for public good. That is not defined in the Constitution. Senility takes its toll.

[RicocheT]

Amen, the justices on the US Supreme Court aren’t the final answer on our right to use and have arms. Neither is the Constitution as it merely recognizes that right, and other rights as preexisting our government.

The rights are those of free and independent American people who came together to form a government for and of free people, one that respects rights as well as sets responsibilities (pay taxes, follow the law, take care of yourselves and your children, come together for common defense, elect honest representatives, etc.).

If the court or the government infringes on our rights, we have the power and duty to correct or change that government. Our power includes the use of votes and if necessary, our arms.

[Triple]

If you ask me, the Court has already tipped thier hands by substituting “state-regulated” for “well regulated”. - GL

I read that just the opposite. My translation of the way they are posing the question is: Do ordinary individuals who are not part of the army or national guard have the individual right to bear arms? Which, imo, is the right question. It removes any proficeincy test that “well-regulated” might impose.

[appalachian_dweller]

Do some research on Germany when Hitler came to power. Compare those gun laws to the ones we have. Scary.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the ping, xsrdx.

Supreme Court to Take Up DC Ban Case

Praise the Lord & BLOAT!

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

If I agreed that the SC had the right to decide this

Not a big fan of Marbury vs Madison I take it.

[NoBullZone]

Different circuits have made different decisions that impact 2nd amendment rights. It is high time for the Supreme Court to make one standard for the country. The more savvy justices who stayed awake in constiutional law will realize the founders took great care to differentiate Federal Rights, State Rights and rights of “the people”:. The phrase : “... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” could not be more clear and hopefully this court will settle it once and for all.

[catman67]

I agree! I think that the phrasing produces a direct oppositional argument over the “Individual” versus the “collective” determination of the right.

Although, for any elementary school pupil of my generation who was taught proper grammar, the meaning is crystal clear.

[drpix]

I’d feel better about the outcome if Dick Cheney would take Anthony Kennedy out hunting.

[gridlock]

The very question accepts the contention that membership in a militia has anything to do with the right to keep and bear arms. A correct reading of the amendment, of course, makes it clear that an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms is a necessary condition for the existance of a militia, which is a reason why the pre-existing right should not be infringed.

In other words, the individual right makes the collective action possible, but the right is not collective. By considering membership in a state-regulated militia part of the question, the Court accepts that that membership is relevant to the question, and that the right is granted and collective.

[Mojohemi]

Wasn’t it Andrew Jackson that made a comment kinda like this,

I don’t care how the justice rules because when the justice makes his rule he then has to come and enforce the ruling?

If we as a republic don’t get Duncan Hunter as our Conservative Candidate we might be forced to use the same statement

[Nervous Tick]

>> If gun owners voted as a block, they could choose the next President and make a difference.

...or cause to be enacted a clearly written constitutional amendment that clarifies that RKBA is an INDIVIDUAL right.

[omega4179]

So “the people” realy means the states rights to shoot the feds, making the civil war instigated by lincoln ,unconstitutional.

[NRA2BFree]

It's time to settle this. It was settled years ago, but the liberals in America want to force their agenda on American gun owners, so I don't look for anything to go our way. You'd think they would understand that saying it is not our right to own guns would start the next civil war. The day it's a felony for Americans to own guns, is the day they will have a hundred million new felons. I don't know ANYONE who will give up their guns. Especially with the traitors in DC and in the courts.

Here are some quotes from my profile page. It's evident that our founding fathers intended for citizens to own guns to protect ourselves from the enemies within. The other quotes are some 'feel good' quotes that we all need to read once and a while. ;o)

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To secure peace, securely and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." --George Washington

"No government power can be abused long. Mankind will not bear it. There is a remedy in human nature against tyranny, that will keep us safe under every form of government."---Samuel Johnson

"The tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."---Thomas Jefferson

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin" ~ Samuel Adams

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."--Thomas Jefferson

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship." --Patrick Henry

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "--Samuel Adams

"A government that does not trust it's law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust." -James Madison

" Freedom was never lost through a brutal assault; it was lost due to sloth, lack of vigilance, and apathy. Gradually more restrictions were imposed to make life seem safer, orderly and more fair. Freedom has been ravaged, now we must suffer the consequences!" author unknown

[Robert357]

Gun-control advocates say the Second amendment was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.

Actually, what would be an interesting argument is that many State Constitution's have 2nd amendment clauses that paraphrase the federal 2nd amendment. Actually, some of the states go way beyond the language in the US Bill of Rights and talk about the "right" to self defense of an individual.

An interesting question could be what is a person's rights under such a state constitution versus the federal government bill of rights. It will be interesting to learn what "the right of the people" means.

I also think that the recent Tulsa federal court ruling that OSHA preempts state gun rules on allowing firearms in locked vehicles on company property, may sneak into the Supreme Court decision. If it does then I think that the Supreme Court has decided to stop federal encroachment of this Bill of Rights issue. The Bill of Rights is just that and it is about time that the "Government" understands that it should not and can not try to undue the basic freedoms of citizens.