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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case
AP via SFGate ^ | 11/20/7 | MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

Posted on 11/20/2007 10:17:40 AM PST by SmithL

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-326 next last
To: catman67
"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.

261 posted on 11/20/2007 10:49:29 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: do the dhue
Image and video hosting by TinyPic http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu5Nl2ENHIhAAcZBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE5Nm1pOGhkBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0Y2NTVfMTAwBGwDV1Mx/SIG=1203q5nco/EXP=1195715045/**http%3a//www.youtube.com/watch%3fv=zLRj5erjhP8
262 posted on 11/20/2007 11:33:23 PM PST by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: lmsii
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.

263 posted on 11/20/2007 11:45:00 PM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: M203M4
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.

264 posted on 11/21/2007 2:17:59 AM PST by Toadman ((molon labe))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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


265 posted on 11/21/2007 4:35:25 AM PST by Sacajaweau ("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
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.
266 posted on 11/21/2007 5:27:07 AM PST by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: omega4179
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


267 posted on 11/21/2007 5:32:44 AM PST by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
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
268 posted on 11/21/2007 5:45:19 AM PST by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

See my post #268


269 posted on 11/21/2007 5:47:22 AM PST by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


270 posted on 11/21/2007 5:57:11 AM PST by cake_crumb (May I never live to see the day America has a 'popular war'. God bless our troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nralife
“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.

271 posted on 11/21/2007 6:04:53 AM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative; Jack Black

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.


272 posted on 11/21/2007 6:05:39 AM PST by cake_crumb (May I never live to see the day America has a 'popular war'. God bless our troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: M203M4
"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.

273 posted on 11/21/2007 6:13:42 AM PST by cake_crumb (May I never live to see the day America has a 'popular war'. God bless our troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: do the dhue

Now that is really scarey!!!


274 posted on 11/21/2007 6:57:20 AM PST by molette67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
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.

275 posted on 11/21/2007 7:20:35 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
"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 !!

276 posted on 11/21/2007 7:48:18 AM PST by LiveFreeOrDie2001 (Check out ---->> www.eaglebrookchurch.com <<----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
“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.

277 posted on 11/21/2007 7:51:39 AM PST by SlayerOfBunnies (An Indian friend of mine wishes to remind everyone... Indians <> muslims)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: warrior9504; babygene; NoBullZone
See New Thread, post-38
278 posted on 11/21/2007 8:31:06 AM PST by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Here’s to hoping they do the right thing.


279 posted on 11/21/2007 8:52:32 AM PST by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: From One - Many

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


280 posted on 11/21/2007 8:56:37 AM PST by MSF BU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-326 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.

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