1 posted on
03/29/2007 12:48:39 PM PDT by
neverdem
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
To: zeugma
BANG!
2 posted on
03/29/2007 12:49:24 PM PDT by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: neverdem
Attorneys for the parties, as well as other legal experts, rank the likelihood that the Supreme Court will hear this case as high, given that the case would entail invalidation of a statute, a conflict between federal circuit courts, and a constitutional issue of wide ranging importance all weighty considerations when it comes to granting certiorari.The same three conditions, and others, prevailed in the Nordyke v. King petition for writ of certiorari, and it was still refused by the US Supreme Court.
3 posted on
03/29/2007 12:54:26 PM PDT by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
To: neverdem; pissant; airborne; Calpernia; AuntB; CharlesWayneCT; Joe Brower
I believe the decision by United States Court of Appeals is correct. I understand the challenges that big cities face from gun violence. But banning people from having handguns in their own homes for self defense is excessive and unconstitutional. It is not a reasonable restriction. It clearly undercuts the Second Amendment, which protects the rights of law abiding individuals to keep and bear arms. Do my eyes deceive me? Did Rudy just flip-flop/pander? On March 22 on the Sean Hannity radio show, he again reiterated his agreement with Parker. He stated that it very well described his view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun, that unreasonable restrictions should be invalidated, and that gun regulations should be decided on a state by state basis.
Okay then.
This:
He stated that it very well described his view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun, that unreasonable restrictions should be invalidated
Is contradicted by THIS:
and that gun regulations should be decided on a state by state basis.
How utterly transparent.
4 posted on
03/29/2007 12:56:26 PM PDT by
Ultra Sonic 007
(Vote for Duncan Hunter in 2008. Audio, Video, and Quotes in my profile.)
To: Duncan Hunter Ambassador
Has Mr. Hunter issued a statement on this ruling yet?
6 posted on
03/29/2007 12:59:38 PM PDT by
Ultra Sonic 007
(Vote for Duncan Hunter in 2008. Audio, Video, and Quotes in my profile.)
To: neverdem
"If none of the Republicans are perfect poster boys for the NRA, what about the Democrats? They forget to mention that Hunter has a 100% rating from the NRA. But, no one in the media wants to give him any acknowledgment. Its a shame.
7 posted on
03/29/2007 1:01:47 PM PDT by
chaos_5
To: neverdem
As Stuart Taylor explained in National Journal, since the Supreme Court last ruled on the Second Amendment in 1939, most courts and legal scholars have held: The amendments first clause means that its sole purpose was to guarantee each state a collective right to have self-armed private citizens available as a military force-in-waiting (militia) to fight off federal encroachments; therefore, the second clause protects no individual right; state militias long ago became defunct; so the Second Amendment is an inoperative historical anachronism. First of all, in the 1939 Miller case, the defendant's lawyer didn't even show up. The Feds won by default.
Secondly, the vast majority of Law Reviews on the Second Amendment hold it to be an individual right, sometimes very reluctantly. The only ones that don't were funded by anti-gun benefactors. (If any global warming study funded by "Big Oil" is automatically invalid, than any 2nd Amendment study by "Big Disarmament" should likewise be deemed automatically invalid).
Comprehensive Bibliography Of The Second Amendment In Law Reviews
Thirdly, even Alan Dershowitz reluctantly admits the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals.
Analyzing The 2nd Amendment
8 posted on
03/29/2007 1:02:46 PM PDT by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
To: neverdem
The striking down of the D.C. gun ban may be the beginning of a larger battle.LOL, Lefties are always late to the war...
In 1986, there were only 9 states that had "shall issue" laws for concealed-carry permits, and 15 states utterly forbade the practice... the NRA has been putting up a good fight since the 1980's.
In 2006, there were 39 states that were "shall issue" or unrestricted, and only 2 that do not issue concealed carry permits under any circumstances.
(EXPLANATION: "May Issue" laws said that if you apply for a permit, the local authority MIGHT allow you to get the permit... but he was not required to give you one. He also would not have to give any valid reason for the refusal. "Shall issue" laws mean that, unless you have a previous violent felony or a current psychological disorder, the locals MUST issue you the permit. "Unrestricted" means that you can carry concealed without a permit.)
9 posted on
03/29/2007 1:07:46 PM PDT by
Teacher317
(Are you familiar with the writings of Shan Yu?)
To: neverdem
The amendments first clause means that its sole purpose was to guarantee each state a collective right to have self-armed private citizens available as a military force-in-waiting (militia) to fight off federal encroachments"
OR
it was to guarantee each citizen the right to have arms to fight off State encroachments? It depends on how you read "free state" -- is that a state that is free, or is it a state of free people?
The C. says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", not "the right of the States to keep a well armed militia."
Clearly, we individuals are expected to bear arms, and I happily comply.
To: neverdem
" No less than Bill Clinton opined on The Charlie Rose Show after Al Gores loss that: The NRA beat him in Arkansas. The NRA and Ralph Nader stand right behind the Supreme Court in their ability to claim that they put George Bush in the White House.... I think the NRA had enough votes in New Hampshire, in Arkansas, maybe in Tennessee and in Missouri to beat us. And they nearly whipped us in two or three other places."
The Rooty-Tooters better take note of what would happen to him in the Red states.
12 posted on
03/29/2007 1:18:25 PM PDT by
Beagle8U
(FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super Walmart for news .)
To: neverdem
My worst nightmare? The Supremes deciding on RKBA like they did in RvW.
13 posted on
03/29/2007 1:21:19 PM PDT by
DBrow
To: neverdem
Georgetown Law Professor Paul Rothstein suggests that that may be just the beginning, explaining: I do not think any of them [the Supreme Court justices] would take the view that there is an absolute right to bear arms. In the end he predicts: The likelihood is that it will be held that there is an individual right that gives way to a strong, specific state interest expressed in a relatively narrowly tailored legislative provision, under some type of intermediate scrutiny test.What the Hell does That mean?
15 posted on
03/29/2007 1:24:03 PM PDT by
Petruchio
(Single, Available, Easy)
To: neverdem
There's a couple things wrong in this article.
First, everyone who is a RKBA supporter should understand that the NRA was, at best, a bystander in this court case, and at worst, no help and only a hinder to winning this case. This case was won because, as Don Kates was fond of telling me in 1994, the lawyers finally found the right plaintiffs -- people who were law-abiding, and had not been arrested for violation of one or more laws, one of which was a gun ban. Instead, these were people who were being denied their civil liberties.
Second, the blither-blather than somehow, the SCOTUS ruling in Miller was the "last word" on the individual vs. state's rights interpretation of the Second Amendment is false. People should go read Miller, and in so doing, they will find out that the Second Amendment was largely a tangent to the central issue of "was Mr. Miller in violation of the 1934 act when he possessed a sawed-off shotgun?" The court then digressed into whether a sawed-down shotgun was a "militia weapon" and therefore, was there an individual right to own such a weapon?
The SCOTUS has never ruled dead-square-center on the Second Amendment, and it has never been "incorporated" via the Fourteenth into state-level rights for individuals, the way the First, Fourth, etc have been.
17 posted on
03/29/2007 1:35:20 PM PDT by
NVDave
To: neverdem
In a written response to an inquiry for this story [Giuliani] explained: I believe the decision by United States Court of Appeals is correct. I understand the challenges that big cities face from gun violence. But banning people from having handguns in their own homes for self defense is excessive and unconstitutional. It is not a reasonable restriction. It clearly undercuts the Second Amendment, which protects the rights of law abiding individuals to keep and bear arms. I KNEW it. I predicted here on FR the day this decision came out that Rudy would use it as an opportunity to recast his position on the Second Amendment, and distance himself from the city-centric views he has previously espoused on this issue.
To: neverdem
21 posted on
03/29/2007 1:43:56 PM PDT by
Edgerunner
(I am here to learn...)
To: neverdem
Here's Parker v. District of Columbia via HTML, courtesy of zeugma.Thanks for the ping and plug!
22 posted on
03/29/2007 1:48:25 PM PDT by
zeugma
(MS Vista has detected your mouse has moved, Cancel or Allow?)
To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ...
The "beginning of a larger battle"? Let's hope so. It's already long overdue. And for those of us who still remember what it means to be an American, it's a battle that we intend to win.
28 posted on
03/29/2007 2:05:19 PM PDT by
Joe Brower
(Sheep have two speeds: "graze" and "stampede".)
To: neverdem
You can't form an ad-hoc militia of unarmed people.
34 posted on
03/29/2007 2:19:17 PM PDT by
Bernard
(The price used to be 30 pieces of silver; now it's a spinach subsidy.)
To: neverdem
45 posted on
03/29/2007 2:44:06 PM PDT by
Copernicus
(A Constitutional Republic revolves around Sovereign Citizens, not citizens around government.)
To: neverdem
50 posted on
03/29/2007 3:09:09 PM PDT by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
To: neverdem
The striking down of the D.C. gun ban may be the beginning of a larger battle. It better be.
The NRA is still pushing for a Congressional repeal of the Ban., with one My Senators introducing the repeal.
That would prevent a Supreme Court ruling. There isn't going to be a better case in a good long time. The folks who initiated the case are "clean", not criminals, they have violated no law, nor even gun "laws" with the "color of law".
Miller, the last definitive ruling by the SC, was a bad case, and "Bad Cases Make Bad Law", especially when one side doesn't even put in an appearance or even a brief at the Court.
58 posted on
03/29/2007 5:28:26 PM PDT by
El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson