Posted on 06/26/2008 7:24:53 AM PDT by Bob Leibowitz
+1
You say this like citizens with machine guns are undesirable.
Oh, on the contrary. I long for the pre-64 days when it was legal....I was just pointing out that gun rights advocates aren’t even asking for them...
Read the complete decision, which is very interesting for any citizen:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/scotus-op-heller06262008.pdf
He doesn't have to. This was a 5-4 decision. One more liberal appointee, and there will be a 5-4 decision saying in essence that the previous court erred, or that it doesn't apply in some more general way.
WOOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOO!!!!!! Now lets begin impeachment proceedings against the idiot judges who fail their oath of office. They have become nothing more than political lemmings and are a disgrace to their office.
It certainly is. Making a distinction about how arms are carried has no basis in reason or the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. "shall not be infringed" is the standard the government must accept.
Second, JPS appears to believe that conditions for the founding generation were roughly equivalent to conditions now, and that many of the framers did not literally have the frontier outside their back doors, or that the framers were not revolutionaries whose individual possession of weapons made the Constitution possible in the first place.
Since Stevens is suddenly interested in these things, here's the opinion of one of them concerning the Supreme Court:
"But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804.
As true in 1804 as in 2008. That at least has not changed.
I believe, given the settled meaning of the 14th Amendment, that this statement is untrue. Furthermore, reading Scalia's opinion directing a few things which would not be affected by the ruling, I think the clear direction is that many other conditions imposed by States -- such as outright bans -- no longer are valid.
The opinion says clearly this case does not discuss the question of incorporation, and the current settled meaning from US v. Cruikshank is that the Second Amendment is not incorporated. However, as I read Scalia's decision, he is clearly inviting a test case to do just that, and the NRA has announced it will apply an incorporation test against Chicago.
Is it me or does this prove how radically socialist and totalitarian the left wing members of SCOTUS are?
For what purpose would Stevens guess the Second Amendment was written? While it is certainly true (especially today) that lots of legislation is written for purposes other than what is supposedly intended, it would seem bizarre that legislation that says "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" wouldn't be intended to prevent government from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.
It cannot refuse licenses arbitrarily and capriciously. Unless DC can quickly show some sound reason why Heller should get his license, it must be issued forthwith; I would expect that Heller could proceed as though he has a license, since, were he arrested, he could argue that the only reason he does not have a license is that DC has wrongfully failed to give him one; the government is not allowed to punish people for its own mistakes. Not that that's ever stopped it before, of course...
Roberts and Alito; Two things (judges) Bush gets big credit for!
Four Judges did not defend the Constitution.
Scarier and scarier.
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.