To the "Brady Bunch" in the gun control crowd. BTW, they are as bad as Obama, the first page you see is one where they try to hit you for money.
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.
Down at the open. But SWHC and RGR both spiked up at 10:15 eastern.
I was expecting Ginsburg and Breyer to agree that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right, but still argue that the DC ban passed whatever “level of scrutiny” they were going to apply, and that Stevens and Souter would dissent on all issues.
So far, it looks like I was wrong, since Stevens and Breyer wrote dissents, and the quotes I’ve seen seem to both argue against an individual right. However, that could just be some selective quoting from the AP. I’ll need to read the opinion, and, damn, I hope it isn’t a 130 page slip opinion like Boumediene was.
n a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”??????
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, “In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”
APPALLING LEFT WING ARROGANT IGNORANCE!!!
Note to Israel: Don't wait for us.
What if Bush hadn’t got the last two?
You might want to keep this in mind. (If you're in a fair fight, your tactics suck.)
The only way they can require you to register your guns is to find them. You might want to consider what tactics you are using.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
Scalia's opinion basically limits itself to the case at hand, which requires these terms. Toward the end, he clearly contemplates that this decision will lead to further cases, but he defers opinion on those questions for now, since they were not germane to the specific case.
That’s interesting. I just caught the end of it, but one of the reporters on Fox News just stated that Obama stated at one of the debates in February (perhaps not IN the debate itself, but to a local reporter attending the event) that he SUPPORTED the DC gun ban.
It’ll be very, VERY interesting to see if that can be proven as fact.
My concern is that here in NYS the counties who issue permits allow the judges to “restrict” carry. The issue for “taget and hunting” purposes but not alwasy for self-protection.
That seems unconstitutional on its face but they do it.
Exactly. Many Freepers would think he would be against any conservative justice.
I don’t think so. If it is the right type of conservative, i.e. a John Roberts, I don’t think he would have any problem with it.
If they "skate through" confirmation it is because of Republican Senators like McCain, not because of Obama.
Pfft. The Bush administration was rooting for DC. About what you'd expect from that guy. Although today, I'd have to say we owe him a debt of gratitude. If he was only going to do one thing right, I'm glad it was this one.
re: Obama linked to gun control efforts
Unless it’s poor, black juvies or other criminals... they’re free to do as they will.
Roe vs. Wade was based on premises and medical information that makes it one of the worst decisions rendered in almost a century. Read it...it is so awful, it is laughable. However, it is rife to be overturned.
This, on the other hand, has been a topic that has been “radioactive” for almost all Courts. Nino basically did what he does best. He used his brain to remind us of what the Constitution says and not what a Court wants it to say. That is why he will be so proud of this, makes Stevens look like an old idiot, and why it was settled so narrowly. He did all he could to keep a simple majority. No coattails allowed in such an important case just to get a 7-2. No compromise...clean by first appearances.
Amen!
no doubt; he could at least get us another Kennedy that sometimes goes with us, while Obama would only give us die-hard lefties.
I even think McCain would support somebody like a Roberts.
Scalia? No. But, Roberts, yes.
It pretty much clarifies that RKBA is not in any way dependent on a military function.
So an 86 year old grandma who lives alone can lawfully protect herself.
I see the licensing issue as being somewhat moot now. What this means to me is that the burden of proof to show that someone may be part of some type of class who would not be allowed is shifted - that class must be clearly and meaningfully defined, and somehow posted in a way that it is common knowledge.
There has to be affirmative, undeniable, reasonable grounds to ever deny RKBA.
The use of the term "assault weapon" is meaningless and vague in a way that will make it very difficult for states and localities to enforce blanket restrictions. Many such restrictions appear to me to have been drafted in such a way as to define "assault weapon" as anything that simply looks like a military-style gun (scary, that is), regardless of the fact that millions of people own civilian-version (semi-automatic) weapons such as M4A3/4s, AR-15s, and AK-47s.
I will suggest to you, based upon my quick scan of the 60+ page majority opinion that such bans are going to be much harder to enforce now.
Finally, the Court addresses Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion, in which he argued in part that the D.C. gun ban was supportable because handgun crime was a big problem in the District. Scalia slaps him down pretty hard, and makes a telling point about the right to keep and bear arms (emphasis is mine):
"We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
Very good news, as I said.
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.