Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 07/16/2007 8:03:08 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: ctdonath2

Is there any way the Supreme Court will refuse to hear this case? It seems like there are enough conflicting cases they will have to rule on this case.


52 posted on 07/16/2007 9:17:07 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ...
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
58 posted on 07/16/2007 9:25:11 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

DC will regret this........


59 posted on 07/16/2007 9:25:37 AM PDT by Mikey_1962 (The last Americans to allow unchecked immigration...... were Native.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

Where in the hell in the constitution does it say you can only have a gun in your home or carry it with a permit? I thought the constitution was very clear the right to keep and bare arms period. All these other laws putting constraints on ownership and the right to carry are un constitutional.


68 posted on 07/16/2007 9:33:51 AM PDT by Americanexpat (A strong democracy through citizen oversight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2
The right to defend one's life and those of one's family is beyond debate.

Our society had evolved into one where we delegate (not surrender!) that obligation to our law enforcement agencies.

Our Law Enforcement Agencies have told us clearly, unambiguously and repeatedly that they are unable to do so.
Our courts have confirmed that Law Enforcement can legally do that.

Q.E.D.
We, the people, must be able legally to do the job.
Having law enforcement in SWAT outfits hauling off the dead, I'm afraid, does not satisfy the basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Just saying.

88 posted on 07/16/2007 9:51:51 AM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2
Skinning Cats: Legal Means to Disarm the Second Amendment
121 posted on 07/16/2007 11:19:04 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

Unless there is an inconsistent decision in another Circuit, the USSC may not take this case. If the D.C. Circuit got it right, there is no need to take it.


122 posted on 07/16/2007 11:22:37 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

With Kennedy the court’s swing liberal, this is setting-up for a 5-4 defeat of the Second Amendment.


127 posted on 07/16/2007 11:37:21 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2; All
Dear SCOTUS,

A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

Quick, what does that mean?

159 posted on 07/16/2007 4:13:40 PM PDT by kAcknor (Don't flatter yourself.... It is a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

This will be very interesting and it would seem that it would be decided 5-4 one way or the other.


160 posted on 07/16/2007 4:50:27 PM PDT by SConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2
The Brady Bunch - is that where the screams of "NOOOOooooo!" are coming from?
162 posted on 07/16/2007 5:05:31 PM PDT by Redbob (WWJBD -"What would Jack Bauer do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2
DC Thug Adrian Fenty was growing desperate. I welcome the appeal. Now's its time for the showdown at the OK Corral AKA The SCOTUS. High Noon!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

167 posted on 07/16/2007 5:41:05 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2
will be whether the Amendment protects an individual right to have guns in one’s home-

What bonehead doesn’t understand that there is really no other way to possess a gun except in your own... possessions?

Where else could you “have” them?

Stupid IMO to go the SCOTUS route. I see a major victory for us unless the court sidesteps the issue in a typical lawyerly fashion.

169 posted on 07/16/2007 5:49:56 PM PDT by bill1952 ("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

bookmark


179 posted on 07/16/2007 7:12:02 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2
Here we go....


182 posted on 07/16/2007 7:18:43 PM PDT by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

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?


185 posted on 07/16/2007 7:26:08 PM PDT by StopGlobalWhining (Only 3 1/2-5% of atmospheric CO2 is the result of human activities. 95-96.5% is from natural sources)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

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.


190 posted on 07/16/2007 8:00:08 PM PDT by Graymatter (FRederalist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson