Posted on 03/18/2008 4:06:43 PM PDT by semantic
MAJORITY AGREEMENT: A majority of Supreme Court justices appeared ready Tuesday to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the Second Amendment's reference to service in a militia.
NO CONSENSUS: But they appeared less ready to agree on the case they were arguing — whether Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws.
THEIR WORDS: "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked. Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Justice Stephen Breyer asked.
There's no need to get a weak 5-4 ruling that attempts to address broader concepts such as suitable regulation, incorporation, etc. Once a strong individual right, sans any militia connection, is established, then it's merely a slow, incremental process (we're talking years here) that leads to an inevitable conclusion.
Finally some good news from DC
Sound just like the road we've been on.
I hope so too. Such a ruling will stop all the, "Not in a militia" gun control arguments. Those Militia angle arguments invariably are used to restrict gun ownership.
One of the lefts’ favorite 2nd mendment shibboleths is about to bite the dust. Frankly, I never thought I’d live to see the day.
9-0 would be nice....I expect 5-4, though.
Welcome to FreeRepublic...
Gun On.
Apply Directly To Forehead.
Gun On.
Apply Directly To Forehead.
Gun On.
Apply Directly To Forehead.
Yes it is Breyer. It is precisely those citizens who need handguns to protect their homes.
Are you a lawywer, semantic? If you know the Constitutional Law and heard the entire oral arguments, I’d feel a lot more at ease.
I think that the approach you outline is very rational. The issue is, are you able to determine from the Q & A the outcome you propose? No offense intended; just for my clarification...
Thank you for your observations. I hope you are right.
You have been thinking about these matters for a while I’d surmise.
Great post. You make me want to think like a Lawyer.
That's so easy even a caveman could answer it. Yes, Justice Breyer, it IS unreasonable. Handguns ARE banned and the crime rate IS very high. Obviously the criminal element does not respond to gun laws. Therefore, it is wholly UNREASONABLE for the law-abiding citizenry to be held hostage to a failed policy.
>Is it “unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?” Justice Stephen Breyer asked.<
YES!!!!! You Freaking MORON!!!!
The handgun ban IS THE REASON THE CRIMINALS FEEL SAFE!!!!!!
Ah, GMTA I see
Is it “unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?”
Yep. It is unreasonable to forbid lawful guns when the crimes are being committed with unlawful guns, despite the ban.
On the other hand, I might compromise with a law that said “Commit a crime with a gun? We’ll hack your gun hand off with a machete.”
With the ACLU darling Ruth on the bench? You have got to be kidding.
This is why winning Presidential elections matters- even when your nominee isn’t perfect.
THIS is how you change a nation.
Hold your nose and vote McCain folks.
Everyone should do themselves a favor by devoting 90 minutes to listening to the podcast. In the alternative (or in conjunction with), try Google News; there's around 4k reports, each with a similar narrative.
You will soon see why liberal MSM types intuitively sense that even the most liberal members of the court simply cannot get past the 2A's plain meaning. Even more importantly, the entire Q&A was in the context of contemporaneous construction.
IOW, they were focused on what the founders meant, and regulations of that era (eg Stevens' gun powder analogy), rather than on 150 yrs of precedent. In fact, Kennedy repeatedly mentioned that Miller was insufficient...
They're gonna rule that the 2A is an individual right beyond soldiering (ie no militia requirement). They will leave open the question of reasonable restrictions/regulations to be fought one by one, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
Roberts will go for the strongest unanimous decision he can get and rely on future generations to restore their full rights.
How ‘bout some assurance you know a thing or two about what you are predicting here. I want to get excited, but I am not quite ready to let myself just yet. Once you convince me you do know a thing or two, then...
HE11 YEAH! WAHOO! This’n here’s done boys, now let’s move on to abortion.
GITTER DUN!
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.