Posted on 11/21/2007 6:16:30 AM PST by epow
It makes me awfully nervous.
I almost think this is a setup.
I just don’t see them saying anything other than that it is an individual right. Not the Roberts/Alito court.
Bingo....
There was a little-noticed decision 12-14 years ago on reversion of railroad rights-of-way that was a classic, also, as far as how the Supremes can diverge from "original intent"---
“For better or for worse, the 2nd Amendment will finally get a hearing before the USSC.”
I think its good. Far better now with the current court then after a Demorat has replaced 2 or 3 of the current justices.
“Because if it doesn’t open season will be declared on our RKBA the next time that a Democrat controlled Congress is accompanied by a Democrat administration, and that could easily be as soon as January of 2009.”
They wont wait that long. The local govts will begin to immediately impose greater restrictions.
Conspiracy theories will abound IMO. The current hype of the North American Union is sure to generate conjecture of a plan to ban firearms before the consolidation of the northern hemisphere.
If they vote to restrict it would seem almost certainly to tie in with a plan to further bypass the Constitutional rights of Americans.
This is for all the marbles.
I think the faith some have in Alito and Roberts is unjustified. They may be fine judges but we really haven’t seen anything to justify it as of yet.
After all, they’re on the court for good no matter what they decide.
If SCOTUS says it is a “collective” right, and states start to pass laws like DC has, how many here are going to comply?
cripplecreek: “It makes me awfully nervous.”
Me, too. I see another 5-4 decision, and I’m not sure which way the 5th vote is going to fall. I think four of the justices will uphold the clear meaning of the 2nd amendment, but the four leftists will ignore it. They’ll parse the wording and/or misinterpret past precedent to create a right to ban guns (is there any doubt about Ruth Bader?). On the other hand, I don’t get a feel for that 5th vote.
Your head in the sand? This Robert’s court is conservative except for the RINO and Dem judges......Ther is more to the world than Hunter.
“I almost think this is a setup.”
So do I.
Questioning this Amendment is just so outrageous, so spun, so twisted etc.
I mean, no other Amendment applies to “groups, like a militia” instead of to individuals so why would our brilliant, LOGICAL Founding Fathers have intended the 2nd Amendment to apply to “groups like a militia” instead of to individuals????
I hate the left - praying for their destruction.
On the one hand, I am glad the issue is seen to be ripe for hearing; on the other hand, I would rest easier if John Paul Stevens - age 87 - would depart this life for a better one. That said, even the liberals on the Court should understand that citizens have rights and government has certain enumerated powers, none of which provide for the deprivation of an individual’s rights, except for very specific cause.
Grammatical Analysis of 2nd amendment, 1991
Excerpt:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
What the hell does Hunter have to do with anything? I’m just being realistic about the way the supreme court behaves.
bump
More and more gun legislation does seem to be the trend in cities and states. Some states still have “may issue” gun carry laws which need to be swept aside. We’ll put a stop to this, hopefully, sometime next June when the High Court’s ruling is released.
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.