*LIVE THREAD* DC vs Heller decision due at 10:00 EST (2nd Amendment)

SCOTUS Blog ^ | 6-26-08 | shameless vanity

[manapua]

Who cares about that fat pig? I'm sure he's armed or has armed bodyguards anyway - he just doesn't want the middle class and poor to have the same right.

I wonder what some of my former professors are doing right now? I expect their heads are exploding. Which makes me smile...

[mware]

Hey daddy, why are all those people crying?

[seoul62]

Good News!!!!!! From the heartbreak of yesterday. Say what you want about Bush, but he did appoint good justices, imagine if Gore was elected-(shudder the thought), the justices he would nominate./Just Asking - seoul62.......

[Kozak]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

He wasn't looking here, thats fro sure....

[Tirian]

To be honest, I was going to stay home on election day because I’m not all that thrilled with McCain.

However, after realizing that we are only one Supreme Court justice removed from losing our rights and our country, I’ve changed my mind and I’ll be voting on November 4th for McCain. Judges in general.....and the Supreme Court in particular....is the reason I’ll vote;

Exactly what a lot of people on FR need to realize - there are too many potential SCOTUS decisions to fritter this one away, folks. An Obama presidency locks up the court for the next 20 years...

[NewJerseyJoe]

from the ruling, this tired old chestnut has finally been put to rest:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

"Scalia, you magnificent bastard! I read your opinion!"

[lainie]

So what if it’s nowhere to be found. Elected officials have invented reasons for various legislation for 200+ years.

And he believes the framers did make a choice to limit the tools available to We The People?

What a complete fool Stevens is.

[green iguana]

those in common use for lawful purposes

Hundreds of thousands of AR-15 style weapons are made and sold here in the US every year. Very common. Used lawfully. The assault weapons ban will never be back.

[tumblindice]

Woo hoo!
(Intro music: doodloo, doddloo, doodloo—doooooooo)

Who is the man that would risk his neck
For his brother man?
SCALIA!
Can you dig it?

Who’s the cat that won’t cop out
When there’s danger all about?
SCALIA!
Right On!

They say this cat Scalia is a bad mother....

[AU72]

Libs have said the Roe v Wade 5-4 vote for abortion is now settled law.

Lets see what they have to say about Heller.

[JZelle]

ping

[An Old Man]

I am pleased that you agree. Have a Very nice day!

Semper Fi
An Old Man

[mewzilla]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia...

Militia members brought their own weapons with them, didn't they? Local and state governments weren't providing them early on. If the locals hadn't owned their own weapons the colonies'd've been screwed.

[Ghengis]

yeah, it's pathetic that 4 Justices can't read the 2nd Amendment, or are willing to ignore it.

This portion of Scalia's opinion says it all...

JUSTICE STEVENS’ view thus relies on the proposition, unsupported by any evidence, that different people of the founding period had vastly different conceptions of the right to keep and bear arms. That simply does not comport with our longstanding view that the Bill of Rights codified venerable, widely understood liberties.

[mad_as_he$$]

yes but registered.

[kevkrom]

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

[brityank]

You can bet your bottom dollar that the whining liberals will do everything in their power to enhance the BATFags even more than they currently do. BATF is the way it is because our Rulers WANT it that way — to instill fear and apprehension in anyone that handles a weapon.

[driftdiver]

So trigger locks are out. Un assembled firearms are out. Does this mean the law requiring firearms be locked up so children can’t get them is also out?

It also seems to support a requirement for permits.

What does it do for waiting periods?

[pabianice]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Uh-oh. Can this ruling be used to prohibit self defense outside the home?

[Mitt Romney]

YES!!