"A vell regooleted meelitia beeeng necessery tu zee secooreety ooff a free-a stete-a, zee reeght ooff zee peuple-a tu keep und beer erms shell nut be-a inffreenged.
Börk! börk! börk!"
Posted on 06/26/2008 3:55:39 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat
It was a win. It was not a big win, but it was a gain over before. It wasn't a knockout punch, but that was not possible in this case. Incorporation was not addressed. Gun laws outside of a total ban was not addressed. They couldn't be addressed as they were not challenged in court. Chicago is being sued right now. That's the REAL big one.
Now the part of concealed weapons is true. That has actually been only an accepted custom in society (in general) over the last 20 some odd years. Open carry has been accepted in general for a long period of time however until recently. Now I support CCW 100%, and prefer Alaska carry, but the court is right under an originalist view (although bans are unheardof).
The definition of reasonableness is a tricky one and will be fought in many courts over the next few years, and I wish Scalia put strict scrutiny in there. That did not happen and dampers this win. We'll see what happens.
I absolutely concur.
I'm not playing their game anymore.
You mean peers that include people that elected Clinton twice and acquited OJ?
Bump, BTTT, as a bookmark
It was just a theory.
Not at all surprised. Simply wistful.
My family has lived in NY for centuries (most recent branch arrived 1850, I think)...yet neither I nor my siblings are there niw.
I'm in self-imposed exile, partly because I'd be considered a Dangerous PersonTM if I went back with my possessions.
Meaningless, as the state doesn't "grant" rights.
You have no idea what you are saying. Google up the opinion and read it and see if you have the same idea. Of course, you might be Robert Paulsen in disguise and then it wouldn’t matter.
Ok, I’m game, what justice, current or otherwise, would vote the closest to Borks voting pattern?
I respectfully disagree, and suggest the statement applies more to you.
Google up the opinion and read it and see if you have the same idea.
I will, but the words of the opinion won't change the fact that the quote from it that you posted is a non-sequitur, with as much validity as "We uphold all provisions of Article IX of the Constitution."
Of course, you might be Robert Paulsen in disguise and then it wouldn’t matter.
Well, if I'm Robert Paulsen in disguise, with deep enough cover that I argue directly against the views that he used to love to express here, then what does it matter?
BTW, are you Souter, Breyer, Stevens, or Ginsburg?
Ok I guess reading a court opinion would be too much for your pea brain.
"A vell regooleted meelitia beeeng necessery tu zee secooreety ooff a free-a stete-a, zee reeght ooff zee peuple-a tu keep und beer erms shell nut be-a inffreenged.
Börk! börk! börk!"
“If Kerry had won Ohio in ‘04 we would now be looking at a 6-3 SCOTUS decision overturning the D.C. circuit and opening the doors to any kind of gun ban or anti-gun scheme the antis could persuade or pay off a Democrat controlled Congress to pass.”
You are correct that all freedom-loving Americans SHOULD be thanking President Bush for this decision. His nomination and subsequent confirmation of Samuel Alito is what gave us this decision today. Alito’s replacement of Sandra Day O’Connor has given us the majority whenever Kennedy decides to agree with us (partial birth abortion, today’s gun case).
However, if Kerry had won in 2004, today’s decision would have still been 5-4 - only Scalia would have written for the dissent. Rehnquist (replaced by Roberts) would have been with us on this one, as he always was (God rest is soul) :)
Don't assume everyone is as stunted as you.
There are two reasons not to go read that opinion tonight: #1, I've read it before (it's the Jehovah's Witness case, right?) and recall that it also refers to exercising "privileges granted by the Bill of Rights" or some such nonsense; and #2, the fact that the statement is wrong is wholly insensitive to whatever else the opinion might contend.
Why not go back to DU, where you can make sacrifices on the altar of liberalism and summon up new rights to be "'granted' by the constitution" (as opposed to those of us who know that we are endowed by our Creator with rights, not handed them later by humans or their constructs!)
And yet, there never seemed to be much gratitude for conservatives who held their noses and voted for the Nanny-State liberal Bush in 2004.
Weak sauce. That all you got? Personal insults don’t constitute a winning argument around here. Come back when you get some facts and apply logic. Until then, I’m not holding my breath.
LOL
I realize you didn't direct this question to me, but I'll answer anyway. :-)
Why yes, I have. At my website, you'll find the most complete treatment of U.S. v. Miller on the net. It includes more applicable documents than you can shake a stick at.
otoh, "crudely sawed-off 16 guage shotguns" are NOT militia weapons (according to Miller, those weapons which are "suitable for defense of self, home, state & nation".), but "rather criminal instrumentalities, suitable to rob a liquor store"."
While the quotes you mentioned aren't actually in Miller, the essense of them are what Scalia was speaking to. The only reason that sawed-off shotguns were not considered by the court to be "militia weapons", was because they weren't informed of the utility of such weapons in the trenches of France during (the somewhat recently concluded at the time) WWI. In fact, their use in battle was so common they had a vernacular name assigned to them of "trench gun". The reason the court wasn't told about this was because neither Miller, nor his attorney showed up in court because Miller was dead, and as such had more pressing concerns.
As I stated in an earlier post, the most glaring omission in all of this is the complete absence of the phrase "letters of marque and reprisal", which only makes sense if private citizens have the right as free men to own cannon, warships, andother non-common instruments of war.
Do you think the jury would allowed to know what the rapist had done to your kids?
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.