Posted on 05/27/2008 7:51:39 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
There. Fixed it.
Damn good post!
Our schools all used to have gun clubs too and kids always brought their guns to school for show.
We live in a dumbed down, sissified, nanny state.
This is normal scheduling for any SCOTUS case.
The judges probably had made their individual decisions when they took the case in the first place (there really isn't that much subsequently new to change their minds on a well-established, if controversial, subject). They then had to wait for the main parties, and their friends, to submit nearly a half-million words of argument on all sides and many tangents to the subject. Then they had to perform the theatrical activity of "oral arguments" where much is discussed but little is said. Then they have to figure out where each judge stands on the issue, aggregate into varying/conflicting points of view, figure out what the majority actually agrees on, and figure out how minority views will be expressed. Then they have to discuss what the consequences of the verdict are and how those will be addressed. Then they have to write a long and incredibly carefully worded document stating the verdict and reasons by which that was reached, and define limits & openings to the scope of that ruling. Then they have to get it printed, archived, and distributed.
It's not a simple process.
Especially when a majority of the judges know what the verdict should be, but are terrified of "third rail" consequences such as that a direct consequence will be the full legalization of machineguns.
There is a big difference between possession and use.
Libel & slander are “use”, with actionable consequences.
Mounting a .50BMG on my Explorer is merely possession.
There's really only one suitable training pistol in those three you mentioned.
I'd stay away from the Walther P22 to prevent a brand new shooter from expecting that all target pistols will have such a rotten-assed trigger as the Walther does. It's also a problematic gun as far as reliability and manufacture is concerned. It's not half the .22LR target pistol the Ruger is. I don't have anything very good to say about the Sig Mosquito, either.
Get something *good* for a first-timer unless you expect them to unlearn a lot of bad education. The Browning Buckmark is a very good target .22, as well as the Ruger.
Impressive!
Every place I've posted that news, I've been typically getting a response of 'Who is Paul Clement?'. Uh, he's the former Solicitor General who argued on behalf of the US government in DC v. Heller, remember him now?
He was one of Scalia's legal aides working on internship as a young law school graduate and later as Solicitor General argued for the government in Silviera v. Lockyer in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It was a hysterical point against falling down the slippery slope towards legalizing machine guns if the petitioner Silviera should prevail.
Of the few places this news was even mentioned, I had read that there was a rumor that Clement resigned ahead of the finding in DC v. Heller because he'd gotten wind of the internal debate at SCOTUS gleaned from their legal aides as well as what legal references they were researching on behalf of the individual justices.
Sounds like rumor, of course. I can certainly tell you that I don't miss him a bit.
You can limit felons, the mentally ill, and similar persons without putting restrictions on the Second Amendment. Under the Fourth Amendment, these INDIVIDUALS may be denied the liberty of possessing arms under due process of law. The rights of the many should not be abrogated because the actions of a few.
IMO the 10th Amendment was destroyed permanently by Lincoln in 1865.
People had their own warships during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, armed with cannon.
Why should the Second Amendment today be limited to firearms, when it specifically states ‘arms’?
I see nothing wrong with people being able to mount whatever they want on their truck.
I didn’t really combine them, I just searched on “coin” and cut-n-pasted the two sections. Punctuation is as it was on the Cornell site I pilfered the text from.
AMEN! 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!
Logically, the amendment says "the right of the people...shall not be infringed". Clearly, if it is legal for New York to pass a law prohibiting .50 caliber machine guns, there can be only one conclusion consistent with the Constitution, and that is that the inhabitants of New York are not really people.
Either that, or the Constitution is being violated. Take your pick.
Grenades and mines are classified under ‘arms’.
Sure is.
Those other factors are neatly taken care of in other amendments; all are valid in coexistence.
I see nothing wrong with the price of an M4A1, with M203 attached, and ACOG scope all for under the price of $5000.
Heck, depending on who you get an AR-15 from, it could be the price of an ACOG scope, or either way from its price. With the scope, it could easily become a $2000 rifle.
you are making the common disconnect between C amendments that flow to people and definition via amendment which define what classes of “people” are legally entitled to certain constitutional rights at all.
Certain classes are excluded from enjoyment of certain rights afforded to others, i.e, felons - and that is a lifelong term - have no collective, class, or individual right to claim certain other civil rights such as voting or even owning a gun or living next to children.
They may not be deprived of certain rights pertaining to criminal rights such as due process and it's pertinent appendages.
Principles of Constitutional Law 201.
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.