Posted on 07/16/2007 8:03:08 AM PDT by ctdonath2
Local government officials in Washington, D.C., decided on Monday to appeal to the Supreme Court in a major test case on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The key issue in the coming petition will be whether the Amendment protects an individual right to have guns in one's home.
I hope you are right, but I fear that this is a very dangerous time to be trying a case like this. Most of the USSC judges are not on our side, and this could result in the 2nd amendment be reserved strictly to the State. We have already lost the 1st amendment (CFR), and risk loosing it all on this case.
And, in that event, we had better have a plan to evac our loved ones. Because while you and I may have access to weapons, does everyone you care about? What happens when people start seeing their loved ones hurt or killed because they took up arms?
If there is to be a real CWII, you need to be honest about the consequences. Most today would not have the back bone to face them, and would cave.
Bravo! Well and truly said.
The old Soviet Union also had a beautiful constitution....on paper. In truth, it meant nothing, because the state had an absolute monopoly on the violent use of power.
Wanna bet that if the Supremes take this case, at least one of them will cite international law in an opinion as justification to overturn the judgment of the DC Circuit Court?
Think Lani Guanier (sp?), or Eliot Spitzer.
To use a term from fark.com: “hilarity ensues”.
Don't count on it. The Supremes have a long history of ducking the issue.
They might use that request for a 30 day extension as their excuse to do nothing.
While it it far from optimal, this could be our best shot at a good outcome. Ever.
Even if it gets that far, the Supremes know how to dance around the ring and avoid physical contact with the heart of the issue. Indeed, if they can’t dodge it altogether they may just complicate it further.
You might be right. I'd like to think so, but recent history doesn't bode well. We should have taken up arms when they passed the National Firearms Act. Now the percentage of the citizenry own arms is way down from what it was in those days.
Of course combine such a ban with other actions, like aid to the terrorists of Fatah, refusal to control the border(s), trying to fight a war on the cheap against those who would kill or enslave us. Cutting and Running from the major theater in that war, thus encouraging the enemy to bring their aggression to our shores, again. Then maybe.
Oh, they’re desperate for that 30 days to work their asses off trying to word an appeal that actually makes some kind of sense, instead of their previous dreck which might very well induce SCOTUS to respond “your appeal is stupid, and we have nothing to add to the well-done currently standing verdict”.
This 30 days is basically their last chance to save gun control (ultimately to wit: prohibition) in the USA. Oh, sure, they may get a half-hour to argue it in person, and dismantling 20,000 laws may take 20,000 cases, but if they don’t come up with a well-reasoned and compelling argument (to wit: “the Founding Fathers plainly did not mean what they plainly wrote in the 2nd Amendment”), they’re gonna suffer a bigger loss than we did with _Miller_ (and that’s taking over 70 years to fix).
Consider, we have two members appointed by President Bush. One, Roberts was twice described in terms that spelled globalist. Alito? I don't know.
The Bush mindset concerning the sovereignty of America:
The active and punitive discouragement of border enforcement, The public records of partnership meetings with Canada and Mexico, The draining away of technical work to enrich other nations, The alignment with hardcore liberals on many topics,Plus many other concerns about America existing as a sovereign nation, I tend to question how Roberts and Alito will rule on areas of law that are critical to Mr. Bush's goals.
IF there is a drive toward globalism, the first step being regionalism, AND the executive branch with a critical mass of the legislative branch are in tune with this goal, we may be surprised at the ruling.
The subsuming of American sovereignty into a regional aggregate, and the distressing changes that will bring about, would make the criminalizaton of gun ownership a must.
“The wrong decision in this case would start a civil war.”
Indeed. And I’m afraid I don’t share the faith some have in this court to make the correct decision—remember that these self-styled “conservatives” are NIMBY elitist who can turn on a dime when our rights get too close to their estates.
Souter/Breyer/Ginsburg? not too much guess work there... Stevens? God bless him for his defense of the 4th Amendment—usually alone, but he’ll probably be a fourth vote against the 2nd here.
That means they need only one more vote.
Kennedy? unreliable...
Roberts and Alito? they are new and impressionable...
Scalia? he has shown a willingness to trash any federalist bona fides he had in the name of political expediency—and sorry, going on ‘hunting trips’ with Dick Cheney does not make you Jeremiah Johnson much less Annie Oakley...
That leaves Thomas as the one sure vote—when the other side starts with 3...
Lord, I hope I’m wrong to be cynical. But I am.
Actually the first question is "is it an individual right", then comes the extent of the right.
It's hard to fathom that if the court rules that the right is individual that it can be limited to "in the home". Not allowing bearing outside the home would certainly be an infringement on the right to bear arms, as not allowing them in the home is an infringement on the right to keep arms. Now they might rule that regulation of the manner of bearing is OK, and thus requiring permist for concealed carry is OK, but open carry cannot be prohibited, at least in public places.
I'd put it a bit differently. We need a case that completes Miller. The basic ruling in Miller was that short barreled shotguns could be taxed, and effectively banned, unless evidence was produced showing they had usefulness in a military/militia context. They do of course, as do machine guns, "sniper rifles"(including the big .50 BMG version), semiautomatic handguns, true battle rifles and real assault rifles.
Never mind other interesting sorts of arms.
Legal teams need money. Where do we donate?
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.