Posted on 03/15/2007 8:44:56 AM PDT by RKV
They understand the wording and the amendment clearly.
They just don't like it, so they try to babblespeak it out of existence. That's all.
You don't really think that people who mysteriously found a right to kill unborn children in a document which nowhere mentions such an act actually have a problem reading a rather plain, unfettered right in that same document, do you?
No. They understand it perfectly. They just want to take away the right declared in the second amendment.
That one landed in the upper deck. Truer words about the attitudes of the elites towards the rubes in flyover country have seldom been spoken.
I wonder how the Supremes are going to react. If they are linear and pure, then even the permitting processes for CCW are unconstitutional.
In a manner of speaking it does. It restricts what they perceive as their "right" to restrict our rights.
Congress has been defining who is in the militia since 1792, cat. The Militia Act of 1792 is worth a read if you want to google it up. Our current militia law has been in place since 1956. That said, its a right of the people, not a right of the militia.
Except for those serving in an active duty militia? Darn tootin' it's unConstitutional! How many other Rights do we have that require a permitting process?
Yep, that got my attention too.
Artemis, we might as well know one way or another whether or not SCOTUS is going to screw us. Waiting doesn't help us.
Yeah, I did read it top to bottom. IANAL, but from what I can tell, the judges pretty well nailed it. I could suggest a couple of points to add (some might call them dicta) - mainly I'd focus on the missions of the militia defined in Article 1 Section 8. In some ways this is back to what the supremes did in Miller - ask which weapons have utility for a militia? My contention is that the weapons carried by soldiers are certainly protected, and that crew served (heavy) weapons and even larger weapons systems (planes and ship) are protected also. This may seem extreme to some. I respond to that by asking if this is not the case, how else could the Congress authorize a "letter of marque," again as detailed in Article 1 Section 8. Why do this? Mainly, since the design of the Constitution says a militia is "necessary" I want it to be able to perform its missions successfully. Since the Constitution specifically includes use of the militia in defense against invasion by a foreign power, that means the militia has to have serious firepower. My contention is that we need a system (somewhat) like Switzerland uses today. Why? 1) It's how the country was designed to work, and 2) it distributes the responsibility for defending it, rather than concentrating it, which is what an army does.
Yep, you could leave your guns with the bartender.
and in some cases sheriffs would do the same for the whole town.
And when they [unconstitutionally] banned carrying arms, they created more problems than they solved. DC's crime rate testifies to that fact.
Can anyone really be this dumb?
Not dumb.
Desperate.
That's the kind of reasoning that results from trying to make words say something they don't say.
SCOTUS, if they even get or take the case, will decide it as painfully narrow as possible. They will address ONLY the two laws struck down, being: no licensing for home-only possession, and requiring locking/disabling arms. They will likely uphold the verdict, and note that the verdict only applies to DC and the two laws in question. They will NOT explicitly broaden the verdict beyond saying that the feds cannot forbid licensing in-home possession, and cannot require disabling arms therein.
The benefit, however, of SCOTUS making such a verdict is opening the floodgates for comparable cases with minor differences.
If the feds can't ban licensed pistols in the home, what about machineguns? (repeal 922(o), return new MGs to NFA approval.)
If the feds can't require locking/disabling legal arms in the home, what about in one's car? (toss FOPA's requirement that arms transported interstate must be unloaded and locked.)
If feds can't prohibit home possession in DC, how about DC carry? ("bear" applies as much as "keep".)
The biggest problem will be establishing "standing", which apparently only exists if one is denied required approval, or is arrested & convicted.
I wonder how the judge would rule on a state abridging the First Amendment, since only Congress is prohibited by the strict language of its text.
Bookmarked
Great article! BTTT!
Thank you. That was a refreshing read for a court decision!
All 3 judges were Reagan/Bush/Bush appointees, by the way... including the dissenting justice.
Thank you. That was a refreshing read for a court decision!
All 3 judges were Reagan/Bush/Bush appointees, by the way... including the dissenting justice.
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.