Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

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

[Eastbound]

"The Supreme Court needs to produce a ruling that will apply uniformely throughout the US."

Equal protection clause, 14th Amendment oughta take care of that.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu5Nl2ENHIhAAcZBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE5Nm1pOGhkBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0Y2NTVfMTAwBGwDV1Mx/SIG=1203q5nco/EXP=1195715045/**http%3a//www.youtube.com/watch%3fv=zLRj5erjhP8

[William Tell]

lmsii said: "It is unfortunate that the SC will not settle the whole issue all at one time."

Only very simple, limited issues can be decided in such a fashion.

The Supreme Court is wise to keep the issue as narrow as the case before it allows.

Assuming that the decision goes as I wish, I don't think you will be dissatisfied. Much of the gun control in the anti-gun regions of the country are supported by court decisions which will be shown to be 100%, absolutely WRONG.

Several cases decided by the Ninth Circus (and denied cert by the Supreme Court) relied on a denial of standing to those whose right was being infringed, stating that the Second Amendment only protects the state's ability to arm a militia.

If the Supreme Court rules that "the people" in the Second Amendment means "individual persons", then they are ruling that the people have a right to bear arms as well as to keep them. The nonsense of the anti-gunners hangs on the narrow issue of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right. There should be many thousands of very unhappy anti-gunners in about six months.

Even further, it should be impossible for a Supreme Court to rule that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights protects individuals, but is somehow not "fundamental", despite its exalted position in our Constitution. It then becomes impossible to permit states to violate such rights any more than states are allowed to outlaw speech or freedom of the press.

[Toadman]

would most Americans go quietly through involuntary disarmament?

I don't know. I guess it would be the manner of disarmament. If law enforcement came to homes and tried to take them (ala New Orleans during Katrina), it would get REALLY ugly. If there were a proclomation that owners had to turn them in, people wouldn't.

I'd probably move to a state that was the least restrictive, but no one is taking my rights or ability to defend my family and myself.

[Sacajaweau]

It sure didn’t change the case numbers in D.C. “Only criminals will have guns”.

[publiusF27]

From the article:

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars.

No, it did not. They should read the Miller case and also the NRA amicus brief in the Parker/Heller appeal.

[uncbob]

Maybe they got tired of the NRA’s lack of support in their state, or endless compromises or endless mail and boring magazines.

The fact is if it wasn't for the NRA gun rights would be long gone PERIOD

And the NRA members have been carrying the load for the rest of the deadbeat gun owners

I repeat my statement if the NRA had 25-30 million members all this Gun Control BS would have never occurred

[uncbob]

If the Supreme Lawyers can turn Roe V Wade into the right to keep and bear abortions, then they can concievably do anything, no matter how random or ridiculous. this could get ugly, not so much by its immediate implications , but by the precedent it will set

Exactly the constitution was shredded many moons ago

Where does the fed get the power to run a Social Security--Medicare--Medicade--Education Aid--Medical Research funding --send $$$$ to foreign countries etc etc etc

The Constitution is and means whatever 9 appointed for life geniuses say it is

They are influenced by the times and prevailing pressure venues

Watch for an relentless campaign by the MSM to influence their opinion

They could easily say it is an Individual Right protected so that the states could have militias but since the states no longer maintain militias it is obsolete

Any reasoning is possible that reflects their personal bias

As Walter Williams stated "The Constitution is not written in hieroglyphics " but you would think it is based on some of the machinations and convoluted reasoning they put forth

CFR is a perfect recent example

[uncbob]

See my post #268

[cake_crumb]

I’ve been wondering whether FReepers were going to stop bickering about elections and pet issues long enough to discuss this. First mention I’ve seen of it on FR.

[sam_paine]

“The Washington, D.C. gun ban has been a monumental failure and the crime statistics prove that,”

This, of course, is completely tangential and irrelevant in this case.

If the gun ban had been a wild success, it would stil be unconstitutional.

[cake_crumb]

We’re with you. According to those papers written by the old, dead guys who wrote the Constitution, the ones everyone wants to desperately to ignore, that’s a major reason for the Second Amendment in the first place: if we ever get a tyrant, we take up arms and revolt.

[cake_crumb]

"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?"

IMO they do. IF those of us willing to fight for our Second Amendment rights are able to set aside what will become petty differences by comparison and organize. Remember this is coming during a public frenzy (for undercaffeinated lack of a better word) over border security and during a war on terrorism.

[molette67]

Now that is really scarey!!!

[DuncanWaring]

First mention I’ve seen of it on FR.

This has been discussed since the Parker decision last March.

Do a keyword search on Parker and/or Heller.

[LiveFreeOrDie2001]

"If the Supreme Court rules that "the people" in the Second Amendment means "individual persons", then they are ruling that the people have a right to bear arms as well as to keep them. The nonsense of the anti-gunners hangs on the narrow issue of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right. There should be many thousands of very unhappy anti-gunners in about six months. "

Hear-Hear !!

[SlayerOfBunnies]

“Reckless morons and/or illiterate buffoons 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.”

There - that reads more accurately.

[drpix]

See New Thread, post-38

[FourtySeven]

Here’s to hoping they do the right thing.

[MSF BU]

We have a number of clearly progun candidates, the one that (apparently) both of us will be voting for among them.