Skip to comments.
Second Amendment case headed to Court (DC appeals Parker case to SCOTUS)
SCOTUSBLOG ^
| Monday, July 16, 2007
Posted on 07/16/2007 8:03:08 AM PDT by ctdonath2
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 421 next last
To: Publius6961
What part of responding to a previous post which had expressed a general ethnic smear don’t YOU understand?
101
posted on
07/16/2007 10:13:12 AM PDT
by
BlackElk
(Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
To: BlackElk
I can’t read those replies, mod removed them. i guess it’s just as well that way.
To: Admin Moderator
Just read yours. I shall comply. Please check #99.
103
posted on
07/16/2007 10:15:09 AM PDT
by
BlackElk
(Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
To: READINABLUESTATE
The wrong decision in this case would start a civil war.This decision would only affect the federal government. Unless, the SCOTUS chooses to incorporate the 2nd amendment to apply to the states, then individual states like Illinois are free to do whatever they want regarding gun ownership.
To: Mariebl; from occupied ga
You'll have to forgive me if I find that argument less than persuasive.Mariebl is correct - unless the court incorporates the 2nd amendment, states and local governments are still free to restrict gun ownership anyway they like.
What it could open the door to is more federal legislation.
To: ctdonath2
SCOTUS hasnt taken any good RKBA cases in 70+ years precisely because there havent been any. Each potential case has been clouded by other issues, and doesnt help that most involved criminals.Good point. With Scalia and Rhenquist on the court, any case involving a criminal was suspect. Hopefully, with Roberts and Alito, Scalia can be a little more focused on constitutional issues rather than the wants of law enforcement.
To: JeffAtlanta
A favorable verdict would open the door to incorporation by recognizing that there is, in fact, an individual right which can and should be incorporated just like the rest.
107
posted on
07/16/2007 10:34:15 AM PDT
by
ctdonath2
(The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
To: ctdonath2
A favorable verdict would open the door to incorporation by recognizing that there is, in fact, an individual right which can and should be incorporated just like the rest.I don't believe that the collective right argument has been the sticking point from incorporating the 2nd though.
To: ctdonath2
Looks like they’re going for broke. They will LOSE, big time, and Americans will WIN!!
109
posted on
07/16/2007 10:42:45 AM PDT
by
Pharmboy
([She turned me into a] Newt! in '08)
To: tumblindice
...There is no constitutional right to hunt...We in Virginia specifically added the right to hunt to the Commonwealth's Constitution back in 2000, but federally there actually is no such right.
110
posted on
07/16/2007 10:44:05 AM PDT
by
nina0113
(If fences don't work, why does the White House have one?)
To: tumblindice
Thank you for the information really appreciate your views on this issue.
111
posted on
07/16/2007 10:44:08 AM PDT
by
Americanexpat
(A strong democracy through citizen oversight.)
To: BlackElk
This “old” stuff really sucks, doesn’t it? I guess it’s better than “dead”, though.
112
posted on
07/16/2007 10:46:31 AM PDT
by
nina0113
(If fences don't work, why does the White House have one?)
To: from occupied ga
True enough, but the decision would still loom large for our side to the good.
113
posted on
07/16/2007 10:46:34 AM PDT
by
Pharmboy
([She turned me into a] Newt! in '08)
To: JeffAtlanta
If the 2nd is collective, then only the states could file for incorporation - which they don’t care about, so they haven’t.
Only by declaring the 2nd individual can individuals then file to have it incorporated.
No “individual” ruling, no incorporation. SCOTUS ruling favorably on Parker would change that.
114
posted on
07/16/2007 10:46:44 AM PDT
by
ctdonath2
(The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
To: brityank
The Supremes will hear the case, rule against DC, and find some weaselly way to avoid the “individual right” ruling that we all want to see.
They’ll have their cake and eat it too.
115
posted on
07/16/2007 10:48:11 AM PDT
by
MrB
(You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
To: nina0113
Not nearly as young as I used to be. Not nearly as old as, God willing, I hope to become. I agree with what I think you are suggesting that, with due humility as to my potential eternal destinations, getting older is preferable to the obvious alternative. For two things, I get to keep posting on FR and voting against Demonrats.
116
posted on
07/16/2007 11:01:22 AM PDT
by
BlackElk
(Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
To: nina0113
AND, May God bless you and yours!
117
posted on
07/16/2007 11:01:57 AM PDT
by
BlackElk
(Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
To: ctdonath2
From your keyboard to God’s ears. (Incorporation of RTKBA)
118
posted on
07/16/2007 11:03:34 AM PDT
by
BlackElk
(Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
To: ctdonath2
What will happen is the SCOTUS will affirm the 2nd Amendment right on the DC area. Since DC comes under the jurisdiction of Federal guidelines, and therefore subject to any federal legislation passed, the Supremes will just make the DC area under the same restrictions of BATF rules as everyone else in the country, thereby putting the DC residence under the same 4473 provisions and GCA of 1934 and 1968, and ignore the individual right issue.
The precedent this might set is that municipalities cannot supercede state or federal law to their own ends as far as gun control issues, a la New York City and Chicago.
119
posted on
07/16/2007 11:09:32 AM PDT
by
Pistolshot
(Every woman, who can, should learn to shoot, and carry a gun.)
To: ctdonath2
The SCOTUS can weasel out by either refusing to grant cert, leaving the ruling applicable only to DC, or hearing the case and deciding it on a technicality, making it only applicable to DC. Justices Roberts and Alito need to cowboy the f*ck up and decide gun control in favor of the Second amendment once and for all.
120
posted on
07/16/2007 11:15:59 AM PDT
by
CholeraJoe
(Ratzaz! There. I do give one about something.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 421 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson