Our Founder's Intent!
Posted on 06/26/2008 3:55:39 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat
Today is the day.
The folks at SCOTUS blog will be providing a live blog to follow developments as quickly as possible.
[Unclear: what types of weapons are allowed?]
That was not in question.
The SC only addresses issues brought before it.
True and I agree. Could havew stated it better.
The court looks to be throwin’ a bone to the next guy, by not discussing it (except to say that in this case, the plaintiff didn’t challenge licensing). Sounds kind of like a “hint, hint, do it this way next time” to me.
“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”
An Inconvenient Truth!
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
Even more importantly. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.
Lays the groundwork for incorporation.
True and I agree. Could have stated it better.
I don’t think so. Heller spoke to the ownership of a firearm “in the home”...there’s nothing in there about concealed carry at all. I expect that this will have little to no practical effect on restrictive CCW laws. I see where you might be able to say that “possess and carry” can be extended into shall-issue CCW—I sure would—but I seriously doubt other courts are going to see it that way.
But what do I know. I’m not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
}:-)4
Odd. Let’s see if the MSM asks how Obama can agree with a decision that stands in direct opposition to his legislative history and stated positions. A guy who wanted to go so far as to ban plinkers agrees with the SC’s decision? Right....
I’ll take the win, but 5-4 really sucks.
This was too close.
WHOOOOOHOOOOO!!! Score one for the good guys!!!
We’re taking our rights back one step at a time.
Our Founder's Intent!
“By the way Obama released a comment saying he agrees with the courts decision.”
Funny, that doesn’t match his voting record. http://gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm
Barack Obama’s Gun-Related Votes The U.S. Senate Debated:
Obama
Voted:
Supporting concealed carry for citizens10
Anti-gun
Banning many common semi-automatic firearms11
Anti-gun
Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned12
Anti-gun
Imposing one handgun a month restrictions13
Anti-gun
Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks14
Anti-gun
Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits15
Anti-gun
Outlawing gun confiscations during a national emergency16
Pro-gun
Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners17
Anti-gun
Restricting the interstate sales of firearms18
Anti-gun
Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC19
Anti-gun
I’m not sure I like what I’m reading on that SCOTUSblog at the bottom of the quotes section:
“On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.””
The District of Columbia isn’t a state, so it’s regulated by the feds. Does this mean that the state and local governments can still make any law they want that restricts our Second Amendment rights?
You nailed that one. People are deluded if they think “Maverick” McCain is going to nominate conservative judges. We’re screwed either way.
If you read some of the posts on the majority decision you’ll see that they
“held” that the 2nd amendment protects the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and that the “prefatory clause” referring to the militia neither restricts nor expands this right.
VERY BIG. VERY GUTSY. (very surprising - I was expecting, as you did, a narrow ruling that didn’t put this issue to bed)
Yes, when the post Civil War Congress was debating the 14th Amendment, one of the issues was Jim Crow laws in the outlawing gun ownership for blacks. Much in the Congressional Record in that vein.
Molon Labe!!
If we allow history to be our guide, the the MSM will practice a little don't ask, don't tell.
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.