Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court meets to issue opinions, orders (Washington DC Gun Ban)
The Las Vegas Sun ^ | May 27, 2008 | AP

Posted on 05/27/2008 7:51:39 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi

The Supreme Court is meeting to issue opinions and announce whether it has accepted any new cases.

Major cases still undecided include the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., and whether people convicted of raping children can be given the death penalty.

The court's term ends in late June.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; billofrights; dc; heller; parker; rkba; scotus; secondamendment; supremecourt; supremes; ussc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-257 last
To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY
The 2nd Amendment is about the defense of the country and the people's defense against tyranny. There is no restriction or caveat in it. WMD are the only type that can be reasonably prohibited to individuals, and that prohibition should be as an amendment to the Constitution!

Elaine Scarry wrote a longish University of Pennsylvania Law Review article on the Second Amendment, distribution of power in the Constitution, and original intent. She also addressed the subject of destructive weapons, and nuclear weapons were a special focus of her article, which argues that recent arrangements for their use, predicated on a need for quick and massive response, are anticonstitutional and politically unhealthy.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Scarry1.html

It's worth noting that the first government to pursue WMD specifically was the Third Reich, for precisely the reasons Scarry thinks are bad, among which was their power to absolve (i.e., make absolute) the ruler of the Third Reich of any sort of social check on his actions. The chain of command to his V-weapon operational teams was very short and fast.

241 posted on 06/01/2008 3:07:15 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: SayNoToDems
.....if a guy can get the chair for simply raping a kid you give the rapist a *very* strong incentive to kill his victim,thus silencing the victim and increasing his chances of getting away with his crime.

They're doing that already.

242 posted on 06/01/2008 3:30:17 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: july4thfreedomfoundation; ExSoldier
Another version of this story stated that Weaver shortened the shotguns himself, in front of the undercover ATF agent, to the length he requested, and the shotguns were only slightly shorter than legally permitted....I think it was a quarter of an inch.

Additional comments:

The story was published in American Rifleman in, I think, March or April 1993. It was a fairly complete account.

According to this version, Weaver shortened the shotguns to 18-1/4" on his first pass. The ATF informant, desiring to entrap Weaver, demanded that Weaver shorten them further to exactly 18". Weaver initially resisted, but dogged by the informant, shortened them again, and that was when the complaint issued.

In the aftermath, other competent authority remeasured the shotguns in question and found that the barrels were, in fact, legal, and that ATF had mismeasured them.

The detail about the incorrect court date was in the American Rifleman story as well. Weaver bailed out and retired to his mountain because he was convinced (correctly) he was being singled out for persecution and prosecution and despaired of a fair proceeding.

He should have relied on an attorney, as you say, but for a low-educated autodidact (and that mostly out of the Bible; he and wife Vickie were really big Bible readers) he actually sized up the situation fairly accurately. He really needed a friend to steer him right, and he didn't have one. Instead he had the BATF well and truly riding his back.

I never heard the "pancake" remark before.

243 posted on 06/01/2008 4:37:39 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
It's my understanding that it is the job of the Solicitor General to argue vigorously before the US Supreme Court that every single bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President is entirely Constitutional.

That includes bills passed by an earlier Congress and signed into law by previous administrations.

Sounds like a rotten job, actually. I could never be a lawyer forced to take a position that I was fundamentally opposed to.

244 posted on 06/01/2008 9:53:31 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: RachelFaith
So, go figure the cost is an ENTIRE WEEKEND of Labor for 15 seconds of out of this world joy !!

Compares favorably to having a kid.

/me ducks and covers

245 posted on 06/02/2008 12:31:57 PM PDT by thulldud (Congress does not want answers. They want scapegoats. (andy58-in-nh))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
It's my understanding that it is the job of the Solicitor General to argue vigorously before the US Supreme Court that every single bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President is entirely Constitutional.

I had wondered whether that was the case. You're right, it would seem to be peculiar in a lot of circumstances. Can you see Abraham Lincoln's Solicitor General standing up and arguing the cogency of the Fugitive Slave Act to the Supreme Court, with Roger Taney sitting up there on the bench? It would be very odd.

246 posted on 06/03/2008 4:52:06 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior
Now unless one of those federal agents was named Clark Kent, the only way they could have known this was by checking local concealed carry records. So, she was assaulted by federal agents for simply *legally* exercising her Second Amendment rights.

She got creamed simply because she had put paper in their hands saying she was a gun owner.

I hadn't heard that one.

Your mentioning it is beginning to make me look smarter and smarter for never having applied for a CHL. CHL = "please beat hell out of me to open the conversation."

Someday it will mean "shoot me now, don't wait."

And with all that relational-database linking going on, even a traffic stop will mean having two or three guns shoved in your face by way of "good evening".

Guess if you've got one already, a Kevlar undershirt and one of those silky stopper-tops would seem to be part of your stepping-out attire. Go to the mall, suit up. Go clubbing or late-nite grocery shopping, better be ready to stop a hot .357.

247 posted on 06/03/2008 5:05:30 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r
it may be that the court will say that it is up to local governments to set their own restrictions, but the federal government is prohibited from doing so... much like the eminent domain issue...

That would not work in DC. The Congress has Plenary power over DC. IF anyplace is considered part of FedGov territory it where the US Constitution must prevail it IS DC!

248 posted on 06/03/2008 5:23:48 AM PDT by suijuris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
I hadn't heard that one.

This was from the testimony of BATF AIC Herbert Byerly before the Senate committee investigating what happened at Ruby Ridge. What was even worse, was that Byerly freely testified that the assault was pre-planned, and even rehearsed. For that, he got a coo of approval by that reknowned lover of the Constitution, Senator Diane Feinstein (D, PRC)...

the infowarrior

249 posted on 06/03/2008 6:43:30 AM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Interesting that you mention the Lincoln Administration there, as the office of the Solicitor General only came into being in 1870 after the Civil War and assassination of Lincoln. The Solicitor General's client is the President of the United States.

I believe that the Solicitor General was originally created to ward off any resistance to Presidential appropriated powers of the kind put forward by the Lincoln Administration during the war -- suspension of Habeus Corpus, spending money without Congressional approval, etc., and prevent legal challenges to Reconstruction before the US Supreme Court. Maybe I am being too cynical about that.

The only reason I even bring up former Solicitor General Paul Clement here is that I'd read some rumors elsewhere about his reasoning for leaving the post and it was solely in regards to 'DC v. Heller'. He'd been carrying the government's water for years in several cases across various US Circuit Courts under multiple US Attorney Generals and it appears that all that work looks like it might get boned in the ear by the forthcoming ruling out of SCOTUS. As the unofficial 'Tenth Justice', he and his staff certainly have their ear closer to the rail than anyone else outside of the Supreme Court on which way the wind blows for Heller.

Clement actually served as US Attorney General for a 24-hour period during the transition between the outgoing Gonzales and in the incoming Mukasey, and that's the best he'll ever get considering that even if McCain wins there would be a significant outcry from RKBA advocates if Clement were to be nominated to the Supreme Court or tapped for US Attorney General. Liberals hate him to pieces for arguing against supposed rights of Guantanamo detainees and for defending Donald Rumsfeld in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld v. Padilla.

It simply could be that all his labor got him was to be reviled as an un-Constititional creep and that his career in government was at an end. The US Supreme Court hasn't seen the last of him, though. He'll have a rewarding career arguing before them at various times, I'm sure.

He's now a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

250 posted on 06/03/2008 10:39:53 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Presuming Heller goes our way, I can see a case making it to SCOTUS in several years that might reopen the NFA to new transferables in states that permit ownership. I think that case would be born by a challenge to any new ban by Congress like the '94 Crime Bill.

What needs to happen is that SCOTUS' ruling destroys the 'Sporting Purpose' language in the 1968 GCA. If the ruling goes our way, that one will be the first to fall. There is no way 'Sporting Purposes' can be defended by the Federal government if SCOTUS rules we have an individual right to keep and bear arms both separate and in concert with the militia.

Congress would have to amend the US Constitution to remove the Militia Clause to head us off at the pass.

251 posted on 06/03/2008 11:06:55 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
Good insight. Few have mentioned the "sporting purpose" issue in light of Heller.
252 posted on 06/03/2008 11:17:07 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
There's a lot of philosophizing about Heller cluttering the RKBA sites around the web, but I seem to notice more about 'strict scrutiny' than I see about 'sporting purposes'.

We've always maintained that the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. The BATFE arbitrarily invents policy with no oversight other than some administrative opinion (unelected and unaccountable) in regards to 'sporting purposes'. Right now, they can just decide whether you go to prison or not on a whim. They write one opinion, send out a useless letter, and then raid a location anyway for reasons that contradict their non-binding little opinions. They need to have this power taken from them in no uncertain terms.

It will change everything.

253 posted on 06/03/2008 12:07:30 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
Are you aware that any Mauser with a "thumb cut" has recently been administratively decreed to be unimportable? This is patently absurd on two counts: 1) the "thumb cut" is actually the tertiary gas relief in the event of a pierced primer or case split; and 2) from day one a great many "sporting" rifles were built from the standard models which included same, not conversions from previous military issue.
254 posted on 06/03/2008 12:50:04 PM PDT by kitchen (Any day without a fair tax thread is a good day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid

The “sporting purpose” issue is encompassed by the “strict scrutiny” principle. The standards defining “sporting purpose” do not meet “strict scrutiny”, thus they will (on subsequent suit) fall. The upside is that import restrictions and other stupid limitations will be eliminated; the downside is the BATFE could throw a fit and declare all shotguns NFA “destructive devices” (bore >0.50”) as they could not use the “sporting purpose” clause for exemption thereto.


255 posted on 06/03/2008 12:59:06 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
When I was the XO of the 9th Division composite Bullseye pistol team in the 1980s we used the Smith & Wesson M41 semiautos (IIRC) in 22LR and a High Standard Olympic target model. We also used Gold Cup 45's specially tuned by the factory for military competition in the precision bullseye arena, rather than combat competition. All triggers had over travel stops and were set at right around 3 pounds clean break, no creep.

Hey it's FRIDAY if this thread is still alive we should get some gun porn going here.... or start a new thread.

256 posted on 06/06/2008 7:59:42 AM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Nice catch!


257 posted on 07/16/2008 5:54:28 PM PDT by neverdem (I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-257 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson