Ginsberg KNOWS that this case is about machine guns as much as handguns. Is the Heller Court going to invent yet a new "self-defense" category of firearms that is protected by the Second Amendment? That "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" can be constrained by whatever the Court decides are suitable arms for whatever purposes the Court recognizes? I think Ginsberg knows that isn't going to happen.
If Ginsberg votes for individual right, then how can she vote for less than strict scrutiny? And if she votes for strict scrutiny, then machine guns are IN.
Ginsberg and the other commies have decided that there is a right to privacy that prohibits the government from preventing a school teacher from taking a pregnant teenager out of school without her parents' permission to allow a physician to kill the unborn child. How on earth can they articulate a reason to keep a combat veteran, for example, from keeping in his home the same weapon that his government demanded he carry in a foreign city?
I know that your statement is plain common sense, but my Faith waivers when it comes to powerful lawyers. With the human 'default' setting being to screw over each other for power & money, I wont be suprised by anything till the decision is read...
Although I do believe their evil has backed them into a corner, Im just not so sure which direction the sociolibtards on the court will lash out, maybe their own self-preservation will rule...
/ holding breath
She can't, esp. for an ENUMERATED right. Abortion - her favorite right - isn't enumerated anywhere. It is all smoke and mirrors, emmanations from penumbras and other such BS (BTW, Thomas reputedly has a sign up on his Supreme Court office wall saying "Don't emmanate into the penumbra"). She wants to save abortion as part of her legacy, then she HAS to vote individual right AND strict scrutiny. I predict that she will surprise everyone by throwing the anti-gunners under the bus, in order to preserve abortion (not that she'd ever say that, but I don't care about the why, only about the result).
Ginsberg and the other commies have decided that there is a right to privacy that prohibits the government from preventing a school teacher from taking a pregnant teenager out of school without her parents' permission to allow a physician to kill the unborn child. How on earth can they articulate a reason to keep a combat veteran, for example, from keeping in his home the same weapon that his government demanded he carry in a foreign city?
Here's a better one: let's use that same vet. He not only used a full auto M16 in Iraq or wherever, putting his butt on the line for all of us, but he ALSO owns a pre-5/19/86 full auto M16 (cost: about $15K). But he wants a new one, and the government won't let him buy it. Talk about a completely IRRATIONAL policy! BTW, that is so irrational IMHO that it would fail ever a rational scrutiny test - and there's no way that we're going to end up with rational scrutiny on an enumerated right that is exercised by at least 40% of the adult population.
Full autos on the rack at Sears inside of 5 years, just like my grandfathers could (and probably did) see pre-1934. Ah, the smell of Liberty is so sweet!