Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

*LIVE THREAD* DC vs Heller decision due at 10:00 EST (2nd Amendment)
SCOTUS Blog ^ | 6-26-08 | shameless vanity

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: banglist; bitter; elections; heller; judiciary; scalia; scotus; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 1,081-1,098 next last
To: B4Ranch

Down at the open. But SWHC and RGR both spiked up at 10:15 eastern.


641 posted on 06/26/2008 8:12:39 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

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.


642 posted on 06/26/2008 8:12:41 AM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas; All

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!!!


643 posted on 06/26/2008 8:13:02 AM PDT by omega4179 ("you can't drill your way out of this" VERO POSSUMUS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Israel wants us to attack Iran.

Note to Israel: Don't wait for us.

644 posted on 06/26/2008 8:13:17 AM PDT by mewzilla (In politics the middle way is none at all. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: 300magnum

What if Bush hadn’t got the last two?


645 posted on 06/26/2008 8:13:19 AM PDT by AliVeritas (If you don't love this country, tear up your passport, leave and live under a dictator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: Crawdad
"This keeps the door open for licensing of all firearms."

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

646 posted on 06/26/2008 8:14:04 AM PDT by An Old Man ("The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress." Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
the references to “licenses” and “in the home” and “restrictions” and “types of guns” and “felons” leads me to believe that these justices believe in a whole lot of limits on Second Amendment rights despite their seeming appearance of coming down on our side.

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.

647 posted on 06/26/2008 8:14:04 AM PDT by kevkrom (2-D fantasy artists wanted: http://faxcelestis.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=213)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: mware

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.


648 posted on 06/26/2008 8:14:38 AM PDT by VOR78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: RKV

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-camp-disa.html
Obama


649 posted on 06/26/2008 8:14:42 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 ('GOP' : Get Our Petroleum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: green iguana

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.


650 posted on 06/26/2008 8:15:08 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

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.


651 posted on 06/26/2008 8:15:40 AM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto
Maybe so, but can you imagine the fruitcakes Obama will nominate and who will skate through confirmation??

If they "skate through" confirmation it is because of Republican Senators like McCain, not because of Obama.

652 posted on 06/26/2008 8:16:04 AM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: mathluv
Fox said it went further than even the Bush Administration was hoping.

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.

653 posted on 06/26/2008 8:16:27 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

re: Obama linked to gun control efforts

Unless it’s poor, black juvies or other criminals... they’re free to do as they will.


654 posted on 06/26/2008 8:16:45 AM PDT by AliVeritas (If you don't love this country, tear up your passport, leave and live under a dictator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: guido911

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.


655 posted on 06/26/2008 8:16:50 AM PDT by Frank Sheed (Fr. V. R. Capodanno, Lt, USN, Catholic Chaplain. 3rd/5th, 1st Marine Div., FMF. MOH, posthumously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

Amen!


656 posted on 06/26/2008 8:17:04 AM PDT by Disturbin (Liberals: buying votes with your tax dollars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rosenfan

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.


657 posted on 06/26/2008 8:17:21 AM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.


658 posted on 06/26/2008 8:17:34 AM PDT by djf (I don't believe in perpetual motion. Perpetual mutton, that's another thing entirely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: mondonico
Schadenfreude

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.
659 posted on 06/26/2008 8:17:54 AM PDT by Nowhere Man (Is Barak HUSSEIN Obama the Anti-Christ? B.O. Stinks - (Robert Riddle))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: bvw
No - it really is a great victory because it establishes a primary and individual right that serves as a barrier to blanket state regulation. In this case, D.C. had imposed a regulation whose practical effect was to render an entire class of commonly-used weapons useless.

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.

660 posted on 06/26/2008 8:18:09 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (Peace is Not The Question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 1,081-1,098 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