Posted on 01/21/2009 11:51:53 AM PST by freedomwarrior998
The Law Review article can be found here. I guess that I felt that this was also likely simply because Obama won the election.
And I don't what they repeal.
L
Support the NRA/ILA with all you can. The Marxists will never stop trying to disarm the law-abiding American public. They are paranoid about the purpose of the Second Amendment.
http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf
So who will overturn it? Obama?
Odd title isn’t it.
The Heller case wasn’t really decided in our favor. It is quite dangerous, and we’d have been better off if the court didn’t take the case. Doors have been opened. The Heller decision says only that handguns cannot be completely banned (leaving wide open the possibility of bans on particular types of handguns or ammunition), and it says clearly that you have the right to defend yourself “in the home” (leaving wide open the possibility of bans on open carry or concealed carry...apparently your rights do not extend past your own four walls).
D.C. v. Heller was a Supreme Court case. Who does he think will overturn it?
On what grounds would it be repealed?
A 3rd grader can read the 2nd amendment and understand it correctly.
An Obama packed Court.
Haller hasnt made a difference in DC. The gun grabbers there can make laws faster than the Supreme Court can declare them unconstitutional.
“The Heller decision says only that handguns cannot be completely banned...and it says clearly that you have the right to defend yourself “in the home” (leaving wide open the possibility of bans on open carry or concealed carry...apparently your rights do not extend past your own four walls).”
Exactly right. The celebration was premature, especisally in light of the 5/4 vote.
So, let me get this straight- you think using a less-maneuverable weapon, like a rifle, to defend your apartment is preferable to a handgun, when to miss means you have a greater chance of killing a neighbor?
The Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the Constitution (not to make up their own Constitution, like Roe), and Heller won because the Constitution was on his side.
Won’t make any difference to me. I’ve resigned my self to being an outlaw in any society that attempts to legislate away my right to defend myself and my family.
Whatever it takes to get your gun!
Pop over here and read all about it.
Sorry, I should have read your post a little more carefully - I’m with you.
Maybe so, but your typical 3rd grader doesn’t have an agenda, and besides that, it was a narrowly split decision. Replacing one or two justices could result in a reversal.
And the Commerce Clause was once seen as a restriction on Federal power, but the Court, for all the hoohah about “established precedent” during the Roberts and Alito confirmations, changed that under political pressure in the ‘30’s. Similarly, any other Court interpretation, including Heller, can change simply based on the makeup of the Court at any given time.
The left doesn’t require any “grounds” for court action. But perhaps overturning the 2nd amendment will be a blessing. Nothing else, that is no other outrage perpetrated by the left, has caused the American people to stand up for their nation and their rights. Maybe jack-booted thugs kicking down doors and confiscating guns will be the spark needed to awaken those who love freedom and lead to the start of the necessary second American revolution. I hope it is. For if we allow the left to take our guns, the nation is finished.
I can understand that a few changes of the court could allow a reversal, but I expect that wrath of the citizens on their Representatives can check this. In another time, they truly feared the NRA and the good old boy wrath.
That would be true if they were truly afraid of the voters, but recently they have learned how to effectively steal elections and that has practically rendered the ballot box inert.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
"Come and take them!"
Good, old fashioned, classic Americans are already a distinct minority. Our voices mean nothing. After amnesty and citizenship for untold millions of foreigners, who do not share classic American values, we shall be completely swept aside.
If the author is a libtard, then he probably thinks/hopes some international tribunal will try and undermine our laws
Boy, you totally missed his point.
Perhaps you could explain exactly how this would work. Last time I remember that happening was when Rostenkowski (powerful chairman of the powerful ways and means committee (you remember that phrase, right)) was surrounded and nearly turned upside down by old people.
As things stand, the deed is nearly always done before we, the unwashed, hear about it. Too late. Are people in massachusetts going to help? Seattle, Portland, san francisco, chicago?
If we want help from our elected "representatives" now is the time to pull them close. I don't mean in a friendly way, unless they are known friendlies.
This is not meant to be unhelpful. I, too, am pissed, and will do everything in my power to trip these bastages up. I hope collectively it is enough.
The great thing about legal scholarship is that it has almost zero effect on judicial decision making. Take a look at the titles above and ask yourself whether they would be terribly relevant to a judge attempting to decide a case. In fairness, there are a few articles each year that are excellent (and that are thought provoking for judges), and I'm not making any comments on the quality of the scholarship of the articles I listed above -- the market pressures and private prisons article, for example was excellent. Indeed, Scalia's opinion in Heller actually references and depends on some excellent legal history scholarship. But quite often, judges mock legal scholars for their disconnect from real-world problems and for their banality.
Is the article cited by Lott irrelevant? No, since the left has always tried to use scholarship to advance its agenda. This will embolden a whole bunch of legal scholars to talk to each other about overturning Heller and why stare decisis needs to be eliminated for conservative decisions. They'll generate buzz, but not much. And courts that already hate the 2d A and Heller will continue trying to weasel around it.
The right needs to get active in academia. We win and lose in the academy, in the media, in the workplace. And unless we get into it for hearts and minds, we're going the way of the dinosaur.
So what can we do? The NRA and other gun rights organizations could endow a chair at a prominent law school for second amendment scholarship. Conservative organizations can create clinics and programs at universities that promote a critical analysis of leftist politics. And so on.
I understand and agree with what you are saying. But there are more like us, than you think.
What is necessary to stop this is something to galvanize the American spirit to resist this Coup.
It is a Coup of the Left in the U.S. They fully intend to destroy us.
I fully intend to fight to the last breath to prevent that.
That doesn't happen very often. One of the reason that stare decisis is important is because the court doesn't want it to look like it is playing political games. Replacing justices and then overruling precedent is a type of political game that hurts the court's credibility.
What it does do is analyze whether, if Heller were overturned, new gun control measures would be effective in reducing either gun possession or gun violence. And the conclusion that it draws is essentially "no".
This law review article actually supports a pro-gun (or at least anti-gun control) standpoint.
“On what grounds would it be repealed?”
“A 3rd grader can read the 2nd amendment and understand it correctly.”
We’re talkin’ liberal “judges” here. ‘Nuff said.
I wish that LBJ was still around so he could grab Zero by his big ears and shake some sense into him.
I only envision the lefties leaving the Supreme Court in the next 4 years...which Zero will replace with other lefties.
So the make-up will stay the same.
I don’t agree with Lott’s characterization of the article. The overturning of Heller is one scenario that the author posits in order predict citizen behaviors and reactions to various gun control measures.
“Did Dr. Lott read the law review article? I just did and it makes no such prediction.
What it does do is analyze whether, if Heller were overturned, new gun control measures would be effective in reducing either gun possession or gun violence. And the conclusion that it draws is essentially “no”.
This law review article actually supports a pro-gun (or at least anti-gun control) standpoint.”
Exactly. The RKBA has enough opponents—we don’t need to create more.
That would be true if they were truly afraid of the voters, but recently they have learned how to effectively steal elections and that has practically rendered the ballot box inert.
soap box
ballot box
jury box
cartridge box
Just two left on the list.
Let's see...300 million guns out there. If each gun eliminates just one of the Civilian National Security Defense Force before being confiscated, at least a few of us will still have guns.....and absolute control of whatever remains of the U.S.
That’s why court rulings on the constitution are BS.
As for me, I’m packing
Well Respected Natural Law Predicts that any anti-Heller Decision will be Overthrown
A “Oh, I need to read that link this weekend” BUMP
A 3rd grader can read the 2nd amendment and understand it correctly.
Exactly. If we lose this right, we lose all rights.
The author of the article is Dr. John Lott, one of the foremost Second Amendment scholars in the country.
That's what I thought about the 5th amendment "takings" clause. Now I know that "use" really means "good," even though the public never gets to use the taken property.
-PJ
One American sharpshooter is worth at least 5 “National Security Force” thugs.
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.