The Second Amendment Wedge

Human Events ^ | November 26, 2007 | Jed Babbin

[Tarpon]

I agree, the economy might take the next slot on the list, but still not a done deal ... It may well end up being Iran and their nukes.

But the $100 a barrel oil won’t be touched with a Democrap ten foot poll. Otherwise they will have to defend their “don’t drill anywhere” policy. Now that most people see food for oil is stupid, that isn’t going to be touched either. That leaves nuclear power plants, which might make the list.

What do you think?

[Beagle8U]

“The Heller appeal will be argued next spring and unless something very odd happens, it will be decided before the election. This is very bad news for the Democrats who — like Hillary — don’t believe that the Second Amendment grants to private citizens the right to keep and bear arms.”

Its good news for RATS if the ruling is favorable to gun owners. It would take most of the heat off them.

An unfavorable ruling only helps Republicans if we have a rock ribbed pro gun nominee.

Since the ruling will come AFTER we have our nominee, a squish like Rooty or Mutt will send gun voters to a third party.

No Rooty No Mutt, No problem.

[Dead Corpse]

Yep. This is pretty much our last attempt with the defibrillator before calling the Time of Death.

[ctdonath2]

Interestingly, the way the Heller question is deliberately worded sets up a rock and a hard place around leftists:
If Roe v. Wade et al is to stand on the foundation of "privacy", then private home ownership of "militia arms" (yes, that includes "all the terrible implements of the soldier") must also be tolerated.
Conversely...
If Heller decides against private home ownership of "militia arms", then Roe v. Wade et al must fall.

[driftdiver]

“If Heller decides against private home ownership of “militia arms”, then Roe v. Wade et al must fall.”

They’ve already created things that aren’t in the Constitution. I have no doubt they can continue the trend should they wish.

The trend world wide is to restrict private ownership of firearms. The courts refer to foreign law more and more. I will be very surprised if the SC decides on private ownership. Most likely they will approve state level ‘common sense’ restrictions for the common good.

I’m not a lawyer but am a realist. The result of this will probably be registration within 5 years and incremental controls on which types of firearms can be owned. State and local govts will all but ban private ownership.

Look to New Orleans where the confiscated the weapons of law abiding citizens. Sure they were ordered to return the weapons (yeah right) but did nothing against those who committed the atrocity.

[neverdem]

Here's Parker from which came Heller, with its interesting excerpt.

Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma.

We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read “bear Arms” in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: “Surely a most familiar meaning [of ‘carries a firearm’] is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (’keepand bear Arms’) and Black’s Law Dictionary . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for”bear Arms.”

[longtermmemmory]

scalia? that may not be good with regards to alito.

remember “scalito” jokes.

We need to know the judges on these.

[DakotaGator]

Concur!

[Travis McGee]

Actually, if the SCOTUS goes 'collective', we won't be deciding anything at the 'ballot' box, but we will settle it with the 'cartridge' box.

Could very well be so.