Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

AP via SFGate ^ | 11/20/7 | MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

[LurkedLongEnough]

How does the current attorney general come down on this question, I wonder? Maybe it’s not relevant, but it could be in the sense of the case publicity factor.

[montag813]

If it goes the wrong way, we’d better cross our legs.

If it goes the wrong way then the Executive branch should ignore the ruling and refuse to prosecute.

[montag813]

It’s too late. I’m long, long, past caring what our pseudo-masters in black robes say.

This is the same body which ruled that Blacks were subhuman, and that the Constitution contained a right to kill the unborn. It is hardly worthy of much respect.

[JoeFromSidney]

Assuming the worst case judicial scenario followed by a few dozen worst case scenarios at the state level, would most Americans go quietly through involuntary disarmament? What is your (asking everyone) sense on how far gone the people are from the notions that founded the country? IOW, aside from political backlash (voting for the ‘other’ party, woopdeedoo), do the powers that be have anything to fear if such a policy was enacted?

Considering the laws that have been passed in California (including microstamping) without revolt, I doubt the majority of gun owners are ready to resist involuntary disarmament. I hope I'm wrong.

If revolt does come, I don't expect to see it in the form of "to the barricades." If it comes, I expect it will be in the form of lots of individuals sniping at anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats.

[SilvieWaldorfMD]

See post #3 -

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1928608/posts?page=18#18

[TLEIBY308]

I think the stage is set,he ruling made.Next step will be a dem led goverment and enforcement.

[muawiyah]

Roberts has 5 votes to disestablish the current DC government as being inappropriately assembled since it has elected members and presumes to have legislative authority that the Constitution assigns exclusively to Congress.

The Executive (or Commander in Chief) has administrative responsibility for governance of DC, much the same as he has that responsibility for military bases and other government controlled lands (both of which are dealt with in the same Constitutional clause).

By disestablishing the DC government, the DC gun law will be discarded thereby throwing the issue into Congress.

The DC residents win by getting rid of the gun law and the DC government.

No general decision on the Second Amendment will be made because that's not what's at issue in DC.

[hinckley buzzard]

The wrong SCOTUS opinion is a declaration of civil war.

Ironically, the very reason the Second Amendment was established in the Bill of Rights. If the Founders meant it to protect the right of States to maintain militias, it would have said "The right of States to maintain militias shall not be infringed."

[Still Thinking]

I suspect, though, if DC loses, they will just write regulations that will produce the same effect as a ban and just start the process again from scratch.

Well, the ultimate effect on DC legislation is not the primary issue for those of us in the pro-rights crowd, nor, for that matter, for those in the anti-rights crowd. Having SCOTUS make a good ruling here is an important first step to rolling back all the infringments of the past century.

[Wonder Warthog]

"... because there is no such thing as state-regulated militias?

Actually, there ARE some states that still have state militias in addition to the National Guard. Texas is one of them, and I know there are others.

[Still Thinking]

How about “It is the Constitutional right of every American except registered Democrats to own any handgun, rifle, shotgun, bazooka, mortar, howitzer, field gun, etc., that they damn well please, the desires of any government entity (who are assumed to be corrupt anyway) notwithstanding.”?

[CodeToad]

This is one hellova buttpucker. Since they already ruled the government can take our lands and sell them as they please, I doubt the court cares much about another silly right such as firearms.

[Gay State Conservative]

Maybe Ginsburg and Breyer will have major strokes and need many months’ worth of rehab and won’t be fit to return to the court until next August.

[Still Thinking]

I would be willing to take four years of Hillary in exchange for four or five correct and broad decisions on the 2A.

[Still Thinking]

Both justices who were replaced voted pro-rights on Kelo. While the replacements are arguably more conservative, if Kelo were decided today, the result would still be 5-4 in favor of the denial of peoples rights.

[Still Thinking]

I don’t think he’d be taking up arms AGAINST his country so much as taking up arms to rescue his country from those holding it hostage.

[crabpott]

I’ve always heard that the SC was not influenced by outside input but maybe it’s time to try. Send some emails, make some calls. I wouldn't’t want them for a moment forgetting what this decision will indicate to a lot of us. Years from now looking back on this decision it could be the trip wire that lead to civil war in this country.

[Sender]

From My Cold, Dead Hands. This right belongs to the people. Am I not a person? Molon labe.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks neverdem.

Gun-control advocates say the Second amendment was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government.

So, when the SCOTUS comes back with a reminder (5-4 split decision I suspect) that the Bill of Rights tells the government what it *can't* do to its citizens, rather than being a list of privileges the government *allows* its citizens...