Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by cryptical
Edited on 03/09/2007 10:38:14 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I will say that this is about the best thing that could happen for you Rudy people. If this works out the way it potentially could, I could see more gun owners possibly willing to overlook his gun-grabbing. Not me, personally, but some.
There's a difference between supplying something to a group because it's too expensive/awkward for common individual ownership, vs. prohibiting individual ownership thereof.
Then read the opinion before spreading further confusion.
They did have to hold that the 2A is an individual right against the Federal Government to reach their conclusion. So, it's certainly a boost for the individual rights view.
You are correct that they didn't reach the incorporation question. There was no reason for them to do so in this case.
This has to be the best news I've heard, in a looooooooong time.
Idiot, wasting my time.
That is the part he will have great trouble with, being the core of his arguments.
Right now, I'm cautiously optimistic about how this would fare in the SCOTUS. I'm not positive that it will go our way, but I do think that now might be the best time to give it a try. We might not have this opportunity again in our lifetimes.
Bush appointed him. Do you think Rudy is more likely to put more Souters or more Scalia's on the bench? I think the former.
I don't trust him any more than his ex-wife and kids trust him. They know him a lot better than we do.
For the life of me I don't know why so many conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon for this two-timing cradle-robbing adulterous cross dressing gun-grabbing abortion proponent. The best reason seems to be "well, he can win." Well that's the excuse we had for voting in Schwartenegger instead of McClintock. We thought we were voting for a "conservative" or at least someone who wasn't a complete Gray Davis liberal. We ousted a wimpy Gray Davis and we got a buff Gray Davis out of the deal. We still have Gray Davis. Our state is still going to hell in a handbasket. The government is still out of control. Liberalism is worse now than before Schwartenegger took power. As far as I'm concerned we still have Gray Davis.
If we put our efforts behind Giuliani, I'm convinced that we will end up with nothing more than Hillary in drag.
There's somebody better. Anybody.
Presuming those laws exist, you mean.
I take it that at this very moment an FFL holder still operating inside of Washington DC could make a Title 1 transfer to a resident of the district. If DC is silent on various firearms laws because they believed all these years that their outright ban (now overturned) caused those laws to be moot, then perhaps a citizen of DC could find themselves walking out of a gun store gun in-hand via 'instant check'. To answer R. Scott's question, I'm not convinced it matters one bit whether the police are aware of the repercussions of today's reversal.
That's why I posted in the first replies in this thread that if there is one FFL dealer still operating in DC, then that dealer ought to and should be able to sell a handgun to a citizen of the District of Columbia. If I were a Freeper living in the city of Washington DC, I would be inquiring this evening as to where I can buy a firearm tomorrow simply because my Federal Court says I can. I would presume it's also legal to acquire one from an out-of-state family member without going through an FFL, just like Sarah Brady did for her son.
I suppose that it's possible to open a gun store in the same DC building that the Brady Campaign operates out of. You could probably host a gun show within sight of Sarah Brady's office in Washington DC.
If the District Court of DC has ruled that the citizens of the district have rights to keep and bear arms, that also means that there must be some provision by which citizens of DC can acquire firearms, correct? To prevent this would be against today's reversal. If the cops tried to step in, now they're violating the citizen's 4th Amendment rights and they could have their asses sued off.
If a court reversed a ruling on RU-486 or 'medical marijuana' in a given locality, how long do we think that liberals would wait before they sought to fill their cupboards with abortion pills and visited a doctor to get a prescription for weed?
Why should a conservative citizen of Washington DC wait for a handgun a minute longer than a liberal would wait for an abortion? The court has spoken.
You have demonstrated that you have little knowledge of the law in this area. Maybe you should quit relying on the words of others and do a bit more studying and research.
This court got the correct interpretation for Miller though. Not your idiotic ramblings.
Wasting time? That is all you do here. I'm not the only one noting it either. You are DEEPLY in the minority.
The Second protects and Individual Right. A Right protected for ALL US citizens, regardless of where in the US they are.
As some of us have been saying for decades now...
I got it from post #197. He was wrong.
This is correct. Further in the decision officers and dragoons of the militia were talked about. These were generally the more affluent of society at the time so had more money. Conversly they were required to outfit themselves with more gear. A Dragoon for example was to provide his own horse, sabre, two pistols, and other effects.
While a horse isn't a tank the point was that the more financial means you had, the more equipment you were to provide for yourself.
I'm not saying that the militia act prohibited anything, only saying that it stated specifically what a militia member was to supply themselves and what was to be provided by the military for militia use.
"YOU RUDY HATERS ALWAYS FIND A WAY TO ATTACK HIM NO MATTER WHAT THREAD YOU'RE ON!!!! "
I don't give a hoot about his politics, I don't care for him because his first wife was his cousin.
Kinda gives me the creeps, if you know what I mean.
One or two hardliners might dissent, but because of the well documented nature of this decision, I think a majority would carry it.
Sure, I talked to my lawyer. She say, "The state of NY has a bigger lawyer budget than you do."
BUT - if the USSC rules NY law an infringement of my rights, I will certainly sue for past damages. In spades.
Bill Gates and Opra would bring Aircraft carriers... ;-)
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.