May God have mercy. Some folks could go on the warpath.
I am ready.
Am I wrong to read into this that the Court realizes the importance of this case to large numbers of average American citizens who are looking for them to uphold the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment? And how far-reaching the effect of their ultimate decision will be all over the U.S.?
The decision will come back as a 5 to 4 (Kennedy will uphold citizen’s rights, with Alito, Thomas, Roberts & Scalia).
The issue has long been settled.
If they want to change it, fine.
If so, please start in Texas. We remain ready to "discuss" the issue of disarmament.
Life and its necessary corollary...
BUMP-TO-THE-TOP!
This is a good sign.
The Supreme Court will decide if the People’s Rights mean exactly what it says or if it means the People’s Rights really means the Government’s ability to tax, regulate, ban and/or confiscate.
My son and I are researching the American Revolution. The Revolution didn’t start on July 4, 1776. It actually began around 1760. That’s when the Brits moved troops off the frontier and into the cities to deal with the “unrest”.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t know how to read a simple sentence, we might have the date of their decision seared into our memories.
They STILL don’t get it. The Constitution doesn’t “give” rights to anyone!
Wait... they’re just deliberating for one day? I thought they were going to release a ruling in a few months?
Bump
The Patton of Counterinsurgency LTG Raymond Odierno
Why Most Voters Shouldn't Vote
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
My fearless prediction:
The SCOTUS rules the 2A is an individual right, but the government can regulate it in some cases ala “shouting fire in a theater”. They will close that this ruling applies only to DC.
The Constitution doesn't give or create rights. It protects them. As to the second part of the question, what part of shall not be "infringed" is so hard to understand?
My prediction is that this case will turn out to be nothing. They will decide that the 2nd amendment does guarantee an individual’s rights, but that those rights are also subject to “reasonable restrictions”. That way they don’t really have to make a decision.
The gun-banners are unarmed, so their warpath is sprinkled with rose petals. I wouldn't worry about 'em.
If I was Clarence Thomas, I would use this opportunity to ask my first question. Of course, that’s probably why I’m not a Supreme Court Justice and he is.
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will quickly release audio tapes after the March 18 argument over gun rights... The immediate, same-day release of audio tapes following arguments in major cases started in the 2000 presidential election, when the justices decided appeals of the Florida recount controversy in favor of George W. Bush. The court has twice this term provided same-day audio. It was made available in cases involving the rights of prisoners detained by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the method of execution by lethal injection... the availability of audio provides the public with a chance to hear the justices at work.Thanks neverdem.
Absolutely wrong. The case could resolve whether the SC will allow the government to attempt to usurp that right, which is granted by God.