Posted on 03/18/2008 9:45:02 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
I'd probably have to get rid of the gun if the perp killed someone. It's not a rational thing, I know the gun's the same, just the idea that my gun killed an innocent would bother me.
Coming from somebody who I think should be aware of Bingham's discussion of the 14th A. in the congressional archives, and how that discussion clarified how we are to interpret the 2nd A., I find Justice Roberts' words about the 2nd A. troubling.
I’ve followed Llahtsov’s theory and practice for several years now.
You can’t have too much ammo. You can always shoot it, sell it, or trade it. Or save it for a rainy day.
It is tool for making holes, at a distance.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
NEWS RELEASE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WON IN TODAY’S SUPREME COURT HEARING, SAYS SAF
BELLEVUE, WA – Today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v Heller produced a clear victory for the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said.
“We are confident,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “that the high court will hand down an opinion that affirms the Second Amendment means what it says. Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of District resident Dick Anthony Heller. We were impressed with the depth of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that ‘the people’ are all citizens.
“We believe the District presented a very weak defense of its handgun ban that is not supported by court precedent or historical fact,” he continued. “Attorney Alan Gura, and Solicitor General Paul Clement, however, both provided a clear and proper perspective on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Mr. Gura’s remarks left the justices with a clear understanding why the District’s handgun ban is unconstitutional.”
Gottlieb believes that Gura, one of three attorneys representing District resident Dick Anthony Heller, who is challenging the 32-year-old handgun ban, “won the oral argument.”
“While we do not expect the Supreme Court to strike down every gun law and regulation on the books,” Gottlieb said, “we anticipate that the court will rule once and for all that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual civil right, and that gun bans, even on specific types of commonly-owned firearms, do not stand up under even modest scrutiny.
“An affirmative ruling, which we anticipate sometime in late June,” he concluded, “will provide a foundation upon which other Draconian firearms laws can be challenged, and more importantly, it will destroy a fantasy that has become a cornerstone argument for restrictive gun control laws. This should put an end to the lie that the Second Amendment only protects some mythical right of the states to organize a militia. That was not true when the amendment was written, it is not true today, and it will not be true tomorrow, regardless how hard extremist gun banners try to make it so.”
“Everybody over age 18 should have a submachine gun. Next?”
Nope. Everybody under age 18 should have a submachine gun. Everybody over age 18 should have a true machine gun. And lots of ammo.
Well, at that point, he's not a member of the Supreme Court...so since they hadn't ruled specifically on the 2nd Amendment recently, it *was* an open issue.
How do you feel about being lenient with robbers, rapists, etc. who refrain from using icky nasty guns for their crimes?
Gee. That’s counting one’s chickens before the fox is out of the henhouse.
Idiot
Facts don’t matter to liberals. Breyer has to be very aware from the may amicus briefs that the ban on handguns in DC HAS NOT resulted in increased pubic safety. He just doesn’t care.
Why, I do believe they're right. That's one of the reasons why I have them.
My take:
Even the most conservative Justices (Thomas excepted, for obvious reasons) seem to have left a lot of cover for existing restrictions on military arms. Counterintuitively, they seem to say it's important to protect the right of the individual to show up armed for militia muster as long as they don't do it with anything more powerful than what's commonly available to the average civilian. And, by the way, machine guns (or anything else we decide isn't OK) aren't commonly available since the law makers say they can't be.
Greaaatttt.
God, PLEASE Save the Constitution.
Gotcha!
Scalia and Roberts said machine guns aren't commonly-owned. (They seemed to fall silent on the reason.) EBRs aren't common in California, either.
See you lads at the muster. And don't forget your longbows and quivers, ya hear...
Frankly, I’ll be satisfied if they put semi-autos with normal (high) cap mags off limits to the gun grabbers. Unless you have a mountain of ammo behind you, full auto isn’t much use. Aimed shots will make better use of ammo.
:-)In non clasIII states
Crime has nothing to do with gun control. Breyer KNOWS that crime wasn’t reduced by disarming private citizens. His aim is to help the liberals in Congress pas slaws to eventually disarm AL of the US so that we cannot effectively fight back against socialism.
“When will they announce a decision, any quess?”
The most important cases always seem to come at the very end of the term.
Unless there is a suprising consensus among the justices, I would expect this decision to be handed down the last week, or quite possibly on the final day that the Court is in session for this term.
- John
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.