Posted on 05/15/2009 6:17:58 AM PDT by marktwain
I think Heller may have done more to set president than most imagine. USSC cases on the 2nd ammendment are very rare. We may not see another for 50 years.
I don't know how to respond, my friend.
Didn't the USSC come within *two* votes of redefining the *meaning* of the 2nd Amendment not too long ago?
Yea they sure did, *2* votes.
Example: a year ago, maybe two here in WI a state wide smoking ban came up before the R controlled senate.
Was defeated.
2008 elections threw out the Rs, gave the D's a majority.
Monday WI's Gov Doyle {spit} will sign the *new* state wide smoking ban!
Shazam!
Oh yea and the greased eel plans to do it in three cities.
Great photo op, huh?
Won't get into the real anger brewing over [that] asinine move.
Will say the rage has manifest in a serious recall effort starting with the clown who wrote and sponsored the AS bill.
An analogy, if you will.
NOW, we have zerO.
zerO has both houses, a super majority in one IIRC.
zerO has to choose an individual to fill the vacant seat on the USSC.
When It makes its choice, let me ask you: Where would you guess the chosen USSC individual will fall concerning our 2nd Amendment?
All that'll be needed is a "case" making it all the way to the USSC, eh?
Child's play, that "case".
These days --more than ever before-- never say never.
Our beloved constitution's seriously been weakened, so far has withstood fierce attack(s) and we [should] all know it, too.
As for your 50 year prediction?
I can't agree; however, I *pray* (really) you're correct & I wrong.
That kind of bias doesn't happen very often for me, either. :^)
Be Ever Vigilant!
The 9th Circuit Court just incorporated the Second Amendment as an individual right in the Nordyke decision. The Supreme Court will be asked to grant cert to incorporate the Second Amendment next term, IMHO. Stare decisis no longer prevails. Circuit courts are now in conflict, probably one of the most common reasons that they take a case.
P.S. Obama is only able to replace liberal geezers barring unforeseen circumstances. You wanted precedent, not president.
Ammo shortage?? What ammo shortage?
No one I Know is short of any ammo!
You must be referring to the relative scarcity on the shelves of stores across the USA.
But actual shortages??Nah, just ask your neigbors, they have plenty.
:-)
Sound like you know your legalese onions to me, neverdem.
Care to xlate the above into lay terms one may understand? :^)
If I had to guess what you've said correctly? It sounds like you're asserting the 2nd has been made *official* ergo untouchable from here on out?
Thought all the amendments were in stone; but, if I'm correct you prove my point insofar as these guys changing, defining, and redefining ordinary words, at will.
If it's so?
I ---personally-- could never again trust the new breed of lawyer to correctly interpret our Constitution, as written. Not trying to pull some kind of hare brained shenanigans to suit whatever the zeitgeist agenda of the time regardless what the founders wrote, supposedly for all time.
Sorry, my friend.
Too hand shy now and *I* believe justly so.
I mean there are precedents, y'know. {g}
BTW did you read THIS?
Please, your opin on the implication(s)?
While incrementalism's totally a domain of the left, a strategy for subverting? And while the pathetic RINO weasel from SC sponsored it? Leftists will break a leg to jump on board.
Just saying.
"P.S. Obama is only able to replace liberal geezers barring unforeseen circumstances. You wanted precedent, not president."
*I* wrote that, or, the east1234 individual?
While I *do* know the difference & consciously try to catch these tricky curiosities of the English lexicon?
The spell checker knows not nor cares. LOL
Lawyers have successfully argued that the federal Bill of Rights is just a restraint on the federal gov't, not the states. The Supreme Court took cases incorpoating the separate amendments as individuals rights that the states can't violate after the 13th Amendment, IIRC. It's good work for lawyers. I'm not a lawyer. Last year's Heller decision only applied to D.C. The 9th Circuit's Nordyke decision just applies to the 9th Circuit, an appellate court.
The Supreme Court will be asked to grant cert to incorporate the Second Amendment next term, IMHO. Stare decisis no longer prevails.
Stare decisis means lower courts have to follow precedent.
Circuit courts are now in conflict, probably one of the most common reasons that they take a case.
Other Circuits say the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean an individual right to keep and bear arms. Thanks for the link.
I think I disagree. We'll see lots and lots of them. They will atempt to effectively overturn Heller, or failing that, or possibly prior to that, they'll get the Heller ruling itself "interpreted" to allow as many restrictions as they can get away with.
But personally, I don't give a hoot. I can read, and what is so hard to understand about "right of the people", which Heller pretty well settled, or "shall not be infringed", which it only touched on.
Actually 1 vote. It was a 5-4 decision, so one vote the other way and it could have been Kennedy's would have made it 5-4 the other way
zerO has to choose an individual to fill the vacant seat on the USSC. When It makes its choice, let me ask you: Where would you guess the chosen USSC individual will fall concerning our 2nd Amendment? All that'll be needed is a "case" making it all the way to the USSC, eh? Child's play, that "case".
Well, for this one, he'll just be replacing one person who doesn't understand "shall not be infringed" with another. Won't make a bit of difference. When Scalia or Kennedy go, that will make a difference, if it happens on Obama's watch. Both were born in 1936, so are about 73. The other 3 in the majority on Heller are about 44 (Roberts) 59 (Alito) and 61 (Thomas). All should be on the court for some time yet, barring the unpredicable.
OTOH The four who voted in the minority, are around 89 (Stevens), 76 (Ginsburg), 71 (Breyer) and 70 Souter. Souter is the one retiring.
The most likely remaining Justices to retire or pass away during Obama's first (and hopefully last!) term are Stevens and Ginsburg. Ginsburg has been in ill health for some time, and Stevens is, well, very OLD.
Still, two of "our" five are past what most consider "normal retirement age" (but Justices tend to hold on for as long as they can), but the other 3 are spring chickens compared to the age when most Justices hang it up.
So, it's much more likely that The One, will merely get to replace anti arms rights statist Justices with others of the same ilk.
But not enough, and so they are looking to buy more. Can't ever have too much, at worst one can pay more for it than might have actually been necessary.
What he's saying is that the question of the application of the second amendment against state or local infringements is no longer "Settled Law", because the 9th Circuit has said that it does apply to the states, while other Circuits have said that it does not. The Constitution must mean the same everywhere, so the Supreme Court is likely to take a case so that they can rule if it does or does not apply to the states. When they do, that will then become "settled law". Just what "shall not be infringed" means, will likely never be completely settled, because the hoplophobes (those who fear guns, ie. gun grabbers) will always be thinking up new schemes, which will then have to be tested against the Courts previous rulings on the meaning of "infringed".
When was the so called AWB passed? 1994?
Have you ever read up on the gun owners protections act? Signed back in 1986? Oh it was singed by a so called pro gun Republican. It ban machine guns from public ownership. The only federal gun control ban still in effect.
FYI: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!
Gun bans “infringe”.
Background checks “infringe”.
Limit on gun per month purchased “infringe”.
CCW laws “infringe”.
Which country has the strongest gun control laws? America.
A country that has a right to bear arms and yet there are over 22,000 gun control laws on the book.
Is this liberal loser gay or something?
FACT: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!
You've read my mind. Seems the current 'inhabitant' is a hybrid of Gore and Kerry- something we'd have already dealt with had either of these two goobers been elected, but inevitable just the same.
Hard to imagine someone worse than Obama on the horizon but if the trend continues it's almost a certainty.
I propose the solution is to go outside the traditional, Northeastern, leadership incubators that produce these defective 'statesmen' and place the task of leading America in the hands of 'regular' Americans.
I'm so sick of the political drooling that passes for discourse. There's the American way and the un-American way. People simply need (media watchdogs) to know which path is being taken and yet, it's blurred beyond recognition. Not good.
My recent experience would lead me to buy a new gun in .40 S&W caliber if I was in the market for one, as that is the caliber I see on teh store shelves most often.
Did anyone ever think their choice of gun would be determined by the availability of ammo?
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.