Skip to comments.
Supreme Court to Take Up DC Ban Case
MSNBC ^
| 11/20/2007
| n/a
Posted on 11/20/2007 10:12:34 AM PST by Pyro7480
Breaking on MSNBC... Supreme Court to take up DC gun ban case
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: banglist; dc; docket; heller; parker; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-170 next last
To: Dead Corpse
Radio Free America will be jammed in the FedZone.
101
posted on
11/20/2007 11:55:41 AM PST
by
Travis McGee
(---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
To: goldstategop
5-4 that this goes down as an individual right. Eitherway the Goberment and Congresscritters will be controlled by the citizens of this country.
To: Travis McGee
103
posted on
11/20/2007 12:02:48 PM PST
by
B4Ranch
(( "Freedom is not free, but don't worry the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share." ))
To: Joe Brower; Old_Professor
It would appear to me it is possible their choicely verbiage of “....violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia...” is an indication of their actual acknowledgment of the Constitutional right of gun ownership absent any state affiliation of the individual. That said, there's hope DC's infringements might not survive the SCOTUS battle.
What think ye?
104
posted on
11/20/2007 12:06:20 PM PST
by
azhenfud
(The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
To: drpix
105
posted on
11/20/2007 12:10:19 PM PST
by
Jasper
(Stand Fast, Craigellachie!!)
To: Dead Corpse; All
Dear Lord,
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful.
Otherwise, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
Amen.
106
posted on
11/20/2007 12:13:20 PM PST
by
RKV
(He who has the guns makes the rules)
To: oldfart; holdonnow
...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia..."State-regulated" militia?
We're going to lose this one, I think, just based on the Court's choice of that one hyphenated term. The constitution does not refer to a "state-regulated" militia. It refers to a "well regulated" militia:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
If the court enters into this with the presumption that "regulated" means subjected to state regulations, rather than with a straight and true aim, then we've already lost significant ground: the definition of "well regulated."
This is going to end horribly, IMHO.
107
posted on
11/20/2007 12:15:47 PM PST
by
Petronski
(Reject the liberal troika: romney, giuliani, mccain)
108
posted on
11/20/2007 12:16:22 PM PST
by
2nd amendment mama
( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
To: azhenfud
I wasn't asked, but... I think the phrasing of the question means we have already won. The "not affiliated" bit excises any discussion of the right as "collective"; if it is not an individual right (or at least has an individual component), then there is simply nothing to discuss.
109
posted on
11/20/2007 12:17:44 PM PST
by
ctdonath2
(The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
To: Petronski
Those are plainly two different terms.
Methinks the wording is to completely avoid any “collective right” discussion - which leaves the presumption of an “individual right”. We’re not going to lose - we’ve already won!
110
posted on
11/20/2007 12:19:27 PM PST
by
ctdonath2
(The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
To: ctdonath2
Really?
I think the majority answers this question by saying:
“What 2nd amendment rights of a person not part of a state-regulated militia? There are none. Next.”
111
posted on
11/20/2007 12:21:40 PM PST
by
Petronski
(Reject the liberal troika: romney, giuliani, mccain)
To: kidd
Also this case is unusual in that BOTH sides of the issue wanted the USSC to hear it. Im not sure why the pro-2nd side wanted it heard, but it suggests confidence that a wider, favorable ruling could be obtained.See my post 89. The issue to be reviewed is VERY narrow, not wide. The Court will only decide the collective/individual issue regarding guns for use in the home in Washington DC.
BTW, how do you know that both sides wanted it? I haven't been able to find any tally of votes for certiorari on this one.
To: ctdonath2
Both I and the NRA would have preferred to have this battle after one more conservative justice is appointed.
Right now, it could go either way.
113
posted on
11/20/2007 12:28:42 PM PST
by
Erik Latranyi
(The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
To: Travis McGee
Gadsden will be on many, many sleeves.
114
posted on
11/20/2007 12:35:55 PM PST
by
wastedyears
(One Marine vs. 550 consultants. Sounds like good odds to me.)
To: ctdonath2
That’s my thinking. It appears their wording recognizes RKBA as an inalienable, individual right.Then should RKBA be ruled as "inalienable" or a right "not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated", it means that right never was, is, nor ever will be intended to be lawfully transferred from the individual to a collective organization whether it be militia or government.
115
posted on
11/20/2007 12:37:38 PM PST
by
azhenfud
(The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
To: ModelBreaker
116
posted on
11/20/2007 12:45:21 PM PST
by
RKV
(He who has the guns makes the rules)
To: Petronski
The constitution does not refer to a "state-regulated" militia. It refers to a "well regulated" militia:IMO, the reason the SCOTUS worded it that particular way is so that when they rule in favor of the individual's RKBA, they also strike down the presumptions in legality of state regulation or state controlled infringements upon the basics of that right.
FWIW, I hope your perspective is wrong and we can all say, "Told you so..."
117
posted on
11/20/2007 12:46:24 PM PST
by
azhenfud
(The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
To: azhenfud
FWIW, I hope your perspective is wrong and we can all say, "Told you so..."Me too.
118
posted on
11/20/2007 12:49:46 PM PST
by
Petronski
(Reject the liberal troika: romney, giuliani, mccain)
To: ModelBreaker
By both sides I meant those prosecuting it and those defending it. Not the justices - I have no idea of which justices granted a review.
119
posted on
11/20/2007 12:54:06 PM PST
by
kidd
To: DuncanWaring
It will be a while before we hear his revisions. :>)
120
posted on
11/20/2007 1:14:23 PM PST
by
beltfed308
(Rudy: When you absolutely,positively need a liberal for President.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-170 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