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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-257 next last
To: Always Right
Just in time for Obama to denounce the 2nd Amendment before the general election.... And lose.

There. Fixed it.

61 posted on 05/27/2008 11:11:46 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 2 | View Replies]

To: mvpel

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.


62 posted on 05/27/2008 11:12:36 AM PDT by RachelFaith (Doing NOTHING... about the illegals already here IS Amnesty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY
Why is it taking so long?

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.

63 posted on 05/27/2008 11:15:13 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

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.


64 posted on 05/27/2008 11:20:11 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
"I can think of a couple of others like the Walther P22 with the target barrel or the Sig Mosquito or the Browning Buck Mark."

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.

65 posted on 05/27/2008 11:23:56 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: RachelFaith

Impressive!


66 posted on 05/27/2008 11:30:43 AM PDT by andyandval
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
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.

If your allegiance is questionable, then likewise is everything else. THESE ARE OBVIOUS CALLS, JUSTICES!
67 posted on 05/27/2008 11:42:19 AM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
One event not really covered here on FR or any of the SCOTUS monitoring sites I visit is the impact of the resignation of Solicitor General Paul Clement a week ago.

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.

68 posted on 05/27/2008 12:00:17 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
“...once you make certain restrictions on the 2nd amendment, then everything gets complicated”

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.

69 posted on 05/27/2008 12:24:00 PM PDT by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY ( The Constitution needs No interpreting, only APPLICATION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
Under the 10th Amendment it would be up to the states to issue age restrictions, just like alcohol.

IMO the 10th Amendment was destroyed permanently by Lincoln in 1865.

70 posted on 05/27/2008 12:29:54 PM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

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.


71 posted on 05/27/2008 12:43:00 PM PDT by wastedyears (Like a bat outta Hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
While you quote the Constitution correctly (accept for punctuation), you err in combining the two sections.
The first, from section 8 of Article I, states a power of Congress. The second, is from section 10, which addressing restrictions on the member STATES, not the Federal Government.
To my knowledge, there has never been a de jure restriction on the Congress from issuing paper currency; they did so during the revolution, and from 1791 up to 1832, when Jackson abolished the United States'Bank.
72 posted on 05/27/2008 12:43:04 PM PDT by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY ( The Constitution needs No interpreting, only APPLICATION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY

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.


73 posted on 05/27/2008 12:47:50 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
“Why should the Second Amendment today be limited to firearms, when it specifically states ‘arms’?”

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!

74 posted on 05/27/2008 12:53:57 PM PDT by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY ( The Constitution needs No interpreting, only APPLICATION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: RachelFaith
What's the license fee (and harrassment) on a mini-gun?
75 posted on 05/27/2008 12:55:38 PM PDT by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY ( The Constitution needs No interpreting, only APPLICATION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Do you really believe that everyone should have 50 cal machine guns fore and aft on their cars in downtown New York City?

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.

76 posted on 05/27/2008 12:56:08 PM PDT by Technogeeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

Grenades and mines are classified under ‘arms’.


77 posted on 05/27/2008 1:10:57 PM PDT by wastedyears (Like a bat outta Hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
The 2nd amendment is NOT “clearly defined” unless you believe ...

Sure is.

Those other factors are neatly taken care of in other amendments; all are valid in coexistence.

78 posted on 05/27/2008 1:15:36 PM PDT by bill1952 (I will vote for McCain if he resigns his Senate seat before this election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

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.


79 posted on 05/27/2008 1:18:07 PM PDT by wastedyears (Like a bat outta Hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
When you start applying the term “reasonable regulation” to a right, then

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.

80 posted on 05/27/2008 1:25:35 PM PDT by bill1952 (I will vote for McCain if he resigns his Senate seat before this election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-257 next 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