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.
A skim on my part says that Stevens argues against an individual right, and that Breyer merely argues that the DC gun ban is reasonable, regardless of the question of individual right.
“When is Stevens or Ginsburg gonna keel over, anyway?”
Every year as the SCOTUS session concludes, I wait with bated breath for the announcement that Stevens is retiring. With an election coming up, it’s not likely this year, either :(
O! to have such a wife...:(
This ruling says nothing about guns on the streets. Says nothing about already existing felony conviction, mental problem, (and various other) preclusions from gun ownership. He's already out spinning that which doesn't apply.
Another thing I haven't seen addressed is how DC is a federal district, not a state. Can't automatically apply everything in this ruling. Have to read it thoroughly.
They won’t do it for long; this decision requires issuing a license except for “cause.”
Time to go on the offense!!
From Page 54. This is where the issue of future machine gun and “Assault Weapon” bans will be resolved (my comments in parens, cites omitted for readbility):
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. …For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. … Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.26
26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only
as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” … We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.” (So, are machine guns that are rare only because of an essential ban “dangerous and unusual” enough to justify the ban that makes them rare?)
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. (As many would show up today for militia service with an AR-15 – or better – any state AWB would seem to be unconstitutional)
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. (Like RPGs. What is he saying? That these - and machine guns – are protected?)
But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right. (Is he saying that because “modern developments” include public acceptance of a machine gun ban, the ban is justified, or is he saying that the principle of the 2nd amendment must be upheld regardless of whether it means we must accept certain weapons?)
Most of the conservative justices are young enough to hold on through an Obamanation of a presidency. What would happen is that Stevens and Ginsburg would feel free to retire and they’d be replaced with younger, healthier Commies and conservatives wouldn’t get another crack at those seats for another fifty years. Hussein can’t force Thomas and Scalia to quit, so it wouldn’t move the court, just assure a minimum level of liberal seats for a long long time to come.
Amen!
You got that right.
Based on his most recent votes, Kennedy seems determined to go out with a 'bang,' and make a name for himself in a big way!
Stevens, OTOH, is just a dolt.
PRAISE THE LORD!
I’m really surprised Kennedy went with the majority. I’ll bet his newly discovered backbone hurts for a month.
So the plurality of republicans who voted for McCain should have their choice negated by the losers, because the losers refuse to support the party choice?
And when we get a conservative, I presume you will allow the moderates to do the same to our candidate? No? It just works one way?
If you want a conservative, find one, get all the conservatives to agree on them, and then support them enough to get a majority of the votes in the primary.
We had control over who was the nominee. The conservatives may well be a majority, and if we had found a compelling conservative they would have drawn moderates as well.
But we didn't. We had 3 candidates. And none of them were acceptable to all the different types of conservatives.
I would have to have first hand knowledge with what their strategy is. Sometimes, things are not what they appear to be.
Those statements would have been better left unwritten. They show a stunning lack of understanding of the original intent of the Founding Fathers as well as ignorance of our own legal and social history.
I would not have allowed those words to be published.
Gimme back my bullets
Know that the liberals on the Court crave the British model where victims are prosecuted for defending themselves
See also Waco
Smoking a little something right now, are you?
Or maybe you're one of those who has to learn all over again what a previous generation understood all too well, with regard to the destructive effects of drug use on society as a whole, as well as on individuals?
Maybe drugs have a deleterious effect on reasoning as well as on short-term memory?
IANAL, but doesn't this seem to indicate that those states not currently "shall issue" be open to a forced change from their "mother may I" stance?
the infowarrior
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.