Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

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

[gridlock]

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

How did we go from "well regulated", which means able to march as a group and keep internal order, all the way to "state regulated"?

[rightwingextremist1776]

18th century fears of an all-powerful national government.

Fears WELL justified I might add......

[metesky]

Game on!

[DBrow]

“That decision supported the collective rights view, “

probably learned that in “journalism” class, or from the Brady Campaign.

[From One - Many]

I was and am worried about this one....Second Amendment....NOT Good

[Tzimisce]

...I can’t believe this is even a question...

[xsrdx]

Yowzah!

[Aglooka]

After Kelo vs. New London “private” property can now be seized for “public use” for private businesses or simply to increase tax revenue.

Of course the 2nd Amendment is meant to guarantee the right for a individual to be armed. Reading it makes that obvious however I’m thinking they will rule it to be a “collective” right. (After considering foreign laws to make that decision of course).

[DBrow]

I’d feel better if he were holding a modern semiauto, rather than a collectible single-shot.

[From One - Many]

oh boy.....it is going to be a five to four decision, folks....and the decision is a toss up.

[drpix]

Probably a historical weapon... and meant to be very symbolic.

[From One - Many]

sign of the times. :(

[Hacklehead]

HOLY CR@p!

[frogjerk]

Watch one of the Justices recuse themselves and it becomes a split-decision...AKA: A DON KING PRODUCTION!

[1Old Pro]

If gun owners voted as a block, they could choose the next President and make a difference.

[Hat-Trick]

In the words of Big John McCarthy:

LET'S GET IT ON. COME ON!

[drpix]

Leaving the swing vote to someone named Kennedy is not a plus. But why would SCOTUS take the case just to agree with the lower court. They could have declined and left thing as they are unless they want to clarify something currently not being accepted by lower courts.

[From One - Many]

Might get there too late to make a difference, and the old media would never tell us someone won who didn't....right?.../s

[M203M4]

Putting the 2nd Amendment up for debate ping.

[rellimpank]

—what so you suggest as “help”—??