Posted on 11/21/2007 1:14:28 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In what may turn out to be the most important Second Amendment ruling since 1939’s hideously misinterpreted Miller - and maybe the most important ruling on the Amendment in American history, the Supreme Court has granted cert to Parker v. D.C. and will be taking up the case in this session. Natch, Glenn Reynolds has tonsalinks.
My first take (I have to admit I’m shaking in my boots at the negative possibilities here, given that I thought the SCOTUS would dodge this one) is that the Court will find an individual right, but do so in such a way that almost no gun control laws currently in place are much disturbed, although pestholes like Chicago and San Francisco may be encouraged to permit their citizens to defend themselves once again. The whole issue of incorporation will be much discussed beyond the court as well, I expect.
If they do declare an individual right, no matter how tightly worded, look for a flood of litigation to follow, though.
Why do I think they’ll come down on an individual right interpretation? Because so-called “settled law” has been based on a collective or states’ rights interpretation. If they wanted that to remain, all they needed to do was…nothing.
Further, the court is a political animal. The justices, I’m sure, took note of what happened with the recent immigration debacle. They can only imagine what would happen if they threatened the RKBA of some 80 million gun owners, some tiny percentage of which are the sort of whackjobs who might take umbrage at the individual justices themselves. Politicians have never been famous for seeking out that sort of potentially lethal disagreement.
And if they do give us a reasonably unfettered individual rights interpretation, with both Bush appointees voting for it, I’ll have to give a big pat on the back to the conservatives who made sure Bush’s likely initial choices for the court were deep-sixed.
UPDATE :
Fred Thompson comments: “The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one’s self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from ‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’
I’ve said it over and over here: The right to life and property is absolutely worthless without the right and ability to effectively defend yourself against attacks on your person and belongings.
Go, Fred! And, actually, go Rudy! Thanks for supporting the Second, both of you!
By the way, what a stinker of an issue this is for the Democrats and the left, eh? I think Hillary will have a Sister Souljah moment and come out in support of an individual rights interpretation. In my leftist days, the New Left certainly felt that way. None of us supported disarming the Black Panthers. And, frankly, Kos isn’t exactly a hotbed of anti-gun fervor, given that a strong stream of opinion there believes they will have to take up arms to protect themselves from us Fascists.
It might be interesting to see, of those massive majorities that favor an individual right to keep and bear arms, what percentage does so because it fears the other side of the ideological divide.
It's a critical juncture.
My hope is that we get a decision that brings our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms back where it should be, with the GCA and NFA noted as unconstitutional infringements on the Second Amendment.
It’s almost a LOCK except for the swing vote! Kennedy is that iffy person. Which way will he swing? Well, which way has he swung in the past on the issue? Folks ought to be doing the research on this. But this is why the election of 2008 is going to be so critical. I think that the aging liberals aren’t going to last much longer. The nations’ freedom and literally sovereignty is going to hang who goes into that court next term.
What one earth makes you say that Rudy is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment? Can you show me any definitive proof of this beyond the normal rhetoric of a lying politician in a crucial election year before an audience he knows he's alienated and just as critically, NEEDS to win! PUH-LEASE.
The only candidates I'm sure of in regard to the their support of the 2nd Amendment are FRED, DUNCAN, TOM & MIKE. I would be equally happy were it one of them who eventually becomes the nominee.
“The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in
their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or
other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes
difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.”
— Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 1588
fast forward to the future.........
“The people of the several States are strictly forbidden to have in their
possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, clubs,
polearms, body armor, night-vision equipment, sniper scopes, rocks,
papers, scissors, brickbats, camouflage-olive drab-khaki clothing, boots,
backpacks or load bearing equipment, or other types of implements of
warfare that threaten the Federal government and the imposition of
Socialism. The possession of unnecessary implements of warfare makes
difficult the collection of confiscatory taxes, fees and dues and tends to
foment uprisings. Therefore, the kleptocratic oligarchy known as the
Federal government is assured of its continued tyrannical rule by
disarming the people.”
— Hillary Rodham Clinton, President of the United Socialist States of
America, April 15th, 2009
I think they’ll find support for an individual weapon but not for a weapons system or crew served weapon.
You mean we can't hunt elk by prepping the area with mortars, first? Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!
That is not part of the "Question" the Court has written for itself to answer. AFAIK, none of the three provisions of the DC Code deals with either Weapons Systems or Crew Served weapons.
Assuming a Good Outcome in this case, those questions will be left to a later case or cases.
One never knows what goes on in the mind of Minolta.
The very wording they use to make whatever ruling could kill any possibility of crew served weapons.
I think we're each holding our individual breaths. After all, breathing is an individual right.
"Give me air, or kill me!" - some old Subgenius fart
Fred gets it, and is willing to state clearly, by quoting Blackstone, that he fully gets it. I want to see Fred's short list for the USSC, and how he plans to get his candidates confirmed. My favored choice would be 67 R Senators (we could afford 7 RINOs in that case).
Remember, Fred Thompson was hand-picked by President Bush to manage Chief Justice John Roberts' successful nomination to the Supreme Court. If he could get that done, there isn't much to worry about.
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.