Posted on 09/30/2009 7:12:10 AM PDT by Lurker
Breaking on WLS Talk Radio. SCOTUS has agreed to hear the NRA case against the Chicago handgun ban.
The following Justices chose to resist tyranny; SCALIA, ROBERTS, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO.
Those for tranny; STEVENS SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER.
Sotomayor replaced Souter.
In King Richie's eyes, those teens were only practicing the Railroad Tie Throw. It is sure to be a 2016 Olympic event . . .
Now is the time for all REAL Americans to put our 2nd Amemndment FIRST!!
“pardon me for not holding much faith in government right now...”
If we were truly free you wouldn’t need ‘faith’ in government. Government would be all but irrelevant. You would only need belief in yourself, your loved ones and perhaps your God.
I know conservatives disagree with me on this, but don’t anyone tell them that’s exactly why we’re in this mess. They often argue the left’s position better than the left—an argument more about degree of slavery than principle.
Reagan argued AGAINST taxes and government. Conservatives seem to have bizarre built-in compromises when it comes to these things and it will forever return to bite them in their sorry *sses. If you want to keep the left at bay you have to argue on principle. No one argues passionately on compromise—yuk!
There are absolutes in this existence. The left understands this but the right can’t seem to stay balanced, or even upright, in this arena.
Gee, I wonder why so many were/are attracted to Reagan?
I love mine! I haven’t shot it much because ammo is so hard to find for a .380 right now. I have had some success in recent weeks finding about 3 boxes x50 rounds apiece, but haven’t had time to shoot any.
I just got an awesome fitted holster for it for open carry when I jog around my neighborhood (but otherwise will stick to concealed carry).
Good stuff!!
Couple of questions:
Will incorporation put this issue to rest once and for all?
Does the definition of restrictive gun laws extend to CCW issues? For example, NJ makes it difficult, but not impossible, to own a handgun but it’s near impossible to legally carry.
Unless Justice Kennedy gets a case of the stupids, we have already won. I’m just wonder if incorporation will occur via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (as would be standard procedure) or via its Privileges or Immunities Clause. The question for this case mentioned both clauses.
Remember that Wash DC politicians continued the ban by redefining most handguns as machine guns. Voila! No ban on handguns, just machine guns—in practical terms, nothing changed.
Wash DC’s dishonesty, designed to squash the freedoms of Americans, should linger like a bad taste in the Supreme Court’s members’ mouths while they are contemplating the words to put in their decision in the Chicago case.
“It seems that only the 2nd amendment doesnt apply to the states, huh?”
Orginally, the Bill of Rights was written out of fear of the new federal government. The states were free to make whatever laws they wanted in this regard. Indeed, “states’ rights” was a rallying cry for the continuation of the rights of individual states to be free to make their own laws without federal government interference during the so-called “civil rights” movement of the 1950’s and 60’s. In what many called, quite rightly I think, an outright power grab by an “activist” supreme court, the rights guaranteed by the first ten amendments have slowly, one by one, been held to apply to the states. It seems that now, perhaps, the Second Amendment’s time has come. Will the Roberts’ Court also be an activist court and extend the rights of the Second Amendment beyond the original intent of the founders? We can only hope so.
Now, that is cool.
So far, clues indicate a win for the good guys, meaning us of course.
I really don’t see how they can rule, with a straight face, that it is only the 2A right among the Bill of Rights that can be limited or negated by state or municipal laws. States can’t limit a person’s right to free expression of religion or censor or regulate political speech. They can’t conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
She supposedly believes in upholding the individual 2A right.
We shall see.
Remember the 3 S’s - shoot, shovel and shutup.
Yeah, 5-4 with Kennedy in the majority.
Wise Latina supposedly supports the 2A in some real limited fashion, but as a federal judge her position was that the states don’t have to recognize the 2A, so this may well be another 5-4. It seems like Kennedy was solid in Heller so I pray he keeps his marbles and stays with the obvious conclusion that the founders wouldn’t have included the 2A in the BoR unless it was intended to be an individual right that the states cannot abridge.
Not after the Heller decision at least.
She needs to read some El Poncho Jefferson.
This is not lost on the court.
Right now, there is no circuit split on the issue (9th circuit was going to hold an en banc hearing, but has now delayed it), and taking the case was actually unusual. I am hopeful that the 5 good judges wanted to decide the issue before Obama has had a chance to do his dirty work. I am actually hopeful that by the time the issue is heard, Ginsburg may become unavailable and Obama may not have time to appoint an even more evil replacement. A 5-3 decision would be better than 5-4.
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.