Posted on 03/10/2007 4:32:16 AM PST by Pharmboy
It seems passing strange, that the able lawyers and statesmen in the First Congress (including James Madison) would have expressed a sole concern for state militias with the language of the Second Amendment. Surely there was a more direct locution, such as Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias or states have a right to a well-regulated militia.
Judge Laurence H. Silberman writing for the majority,
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Because it is the proverbial "hot potato". They know that if they rule for individual rights, it effectively abolishes all gun control measures, and if they rule the collective, then it gives the government the go ahead to do whatever they want to with regard to personal firearms ownership, up to and including registration and confiscation, and that would lead to open revolt.
Personally I see them refusing to hear it, thus letting the decision stand. But I may just be optomistic.
I was think along the lines of someone living in a "circuit" where the courts have ruled against 2nd Amendment rights.So someone in Boston or San Francisco who was denied the right to own a firearm for no good reason would say..."on to the Supreme Court!".I think the SC justices would recognize that this issue...an issue involving the *Bill of Rights* must be resolved so that *all* Americans are playing under the same rules.
She was appointed by Dubya!
No, she was appointed by HW Bush.
--the primary reason is that no entity can "bring" anything to the Supreme Court--they decide what they choose to hear-
-and if you wonder why, for example, that the NRA hasn't pushed for certain issues in the past, look no further than the infamous McCain-Feingold decision--"Congress shall make no law", etc.---
Oh yes! Thanks for the ping, Pharmboy. Excellent, and I'd like to obtain the whole majority opinion.
Technically, this is just about the only way to break even the "qualified immunity". But prosecutors IIRC enjoy (as do judges, and a couple other categories in different states) what is known as "absolute immunity". Qualified immunity protects one from civil liability, but absolute immunity even bars a lawsuit from even taking place.
NO cheers, unfortunately, as both forms of immunity are widely abused.
Ask and you shall receive...thanks, Raven...to read something like this majority opinion when there's so much junk stuff floating around is just wonderful...a great boost to the spirit.
Let me think:
Slicing cheese and summer sausage in the blind, poking cripples, snagging decoy lines, clearing brush for the blind, stirring hot cocoa, cleaning ducks, poking snow out of your barrel, clearing jammed ammo, self defense against kamkazi geese,...... Can you get a bayonette lug on a Benelli Super Black Eagle II?
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
I respectfully beg to differ with your conclusion.
L
Condolences to Judge Silberman on the death of his remarkable wife, Rosalie (Ricky).
One of Ricky's many accomplishments was her successful fight against the radical feminists who stopped at nothing in their quest to derail Clarence Thomas' nomination.
She's not a liberal.
She's not a liberal.
Excellent. Thanks for the ping.
If this sticks through SCOTUS, it might help Rudy (in that it would make the Second Amendment more bullet-proof [so to speak]).
Uh-oh. You do see what this decision means? All the thugs and criminals are jumping for joy because they can go get handguns and bring them into their homes without biting their fingernails off that they may be doing something illegal.
FRegards.
At first reading, I thought you might be correct.
But there is no way I will be voting for a RINO who would be appointing judges, including Supreme Court justices, who would be inclined to reverse such a decision. If the majority of Republicans choose Rudy, they will be counting on votes other than mine.
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.