Justice Scalia Gets His Gun; SCOTUS Finds 2nd Amendment

Leibowtiz's Canticle ^ | June 26, 2008 | Leibowitz

[KC Burke]

Thanks for your quick and timely analysis, Bob.

[johnny7]

OUTSTANDING!!!

Yup...but a 5-4 decision just shows how FUBAR the 4 dissenting justice's are. We have more work to do to get the SCOTUS back on track.

[xcamel]

YES!!!!!!!

[rahbert]

If the decision is carried to its logical conclusion,
it would appear that this strikes down restrictions
against purchasing and possessing (by non felons non
mentally ill), “assault weapon” bans, and “may issue”
or “non issue” CCW policies.

NRA needs to begin challenging all the various magazine
restrictions, AWBs, .50cal bans, and all the rest of the
crap laws enacted by the Feinstein/Don Perata/Corzine/Bloomberg/Schumer cabal.

[JohnLongIsland]

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Is it me or does this prove how radically socialist and totalitarian the left wing members of SCOTUS are?

[mr_hammer]

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

WTF...damn straight Justice Paul!

[Vinnie]

The troubling part is the 5-4 decision.

Four justices believe the 2nd amendment doesn't mean what it says.

[Joe Boucher]

Sort of like terrorist detainees.
After these rulings you have to think twice about bringing these vermin in for trial. Just kill their sorry butts. Then you don’t need worry about some p.o.s. judge letting them go.

[messierhunter]

You're right about that. Just look at Steven's dissent to find out how badly liberals want to "control your rights" for you:

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

You're damn right they limited the "tools" available to you to "regulate" the unwashed masses. Liberals have NOTHING but contempt for anyone who wishes to limit government. Funny enough, that's exactly what the bill of rights is supposed to do, and yet a justice of the supreme court, someone who's supposed to be an expert on this matter, can't even grasp that simple concept. 5-4 in our favor, we weren't just lucky, this was divine intervention of a near disaster.

[mr_hammer]

You saw that too, did you? Scary, very scary! See my post mere seconds after yours.

[Rockhound]

Hooray! That’s a big relief, and a decision that is long overdue. I’m more than a little concerned that there are four judges seated on the highest court of the land that do not agree.

So, when will the ACLU take their first case supporting an individual’s right to keep and bear arms? (I’m not holding my breath!)

[Joe Brower]

My internet connection is blinking on and off at random on today of all days, but I'll do my best to keep the pings going on this historic ruling.

[ClearCase_guy]

"the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

The man hits the nail on the head -- and STILL comes down on the wrong side!

[NonValueAdded]

Thank you for your reporting, sir. I asked earlier whether this was a small step or a giant leap and I fear it’s only a small step - an important one, but nevertheless the progress is fragile. Watch for aggressive regulation and a liberal interpretation of what is considered an unusual weapon (aligned with the court’s interpretation of unusual punishment in the child rape case) to keep a lid on things ... awaiting a reversal of the slim supporting majority in this case. The 4+1 liberal side of the court has already shown that precedent can be cast aside on a whim.

[mr_hammer]

“5-4 in our favor, we weren’t just lucky, this was divine intervention of a near disaster. “

Damn straight! We live to fight on!

Freedom is not free!

[P8riot]

Looks like we dodged a bullet! ;-)

Looks like they did too.

[Old Professer]

Masochists in search of sadists never have to stand in line.

[bvw]

I hope Doctor Scalia’s prescriptive writing is powerful beyond my morning’s imagination, for while a happy morning to all, including me — I have given my dire cautions on the live thread.

[JohnLongIsland]

I have to send a letter to my congresswoman(NY 4th), one of the real anti-gun proponents in the house.