 |
To be added or removed from the "The Wall Street Journal" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady. |
Posted on 03/02/2010 4:29:22 PM PST by GOP_Lady
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court seemed ready to rule that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, a move that for the first time would give federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing Second Amendment rights.
At oral arguments Tuesday, the court considered whether its 2008 decision voiding the District of Columbia handgun ban should be extended to the rest of the country. Because Washington is a federal territory and not part of a state, the legal basis for imposing federal constitutional limits on laws adopted by states had been unclear.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
I sure hope they rule to help gun rights!! It’s about time!! Too many cities have rules that are nuts!!!
Hooyah Bill Of Rights!!!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! (as the old saying goes!!)
I hope they make the correct ruling to protect the rights of US citizens!!! Way too many places have tried to rule it out!!
i have a question about this and i am fully aware that it could result in flamage. but this is a serious quest for understanding .... sooo.... how would this ruling affect states rights issues? i know some states are pushing 10th amendment legislation to reassert their sovereign rights, would the feds be able to say..”hey, if our constitution says everyone has to play by the federal rules on the 2nd amendment, then everyone has to play by the federal rules on everything.” could they use this as a means to squash states rights? or would it help to facilitate the states rights push?
No flames....
This doesn’t directly affect the states-rights position.
The bill of rights establishes (then requires) that governments respect the rights of the people; ALL governments.
The 10th Amendment requires that the FedGov keep its grubby paws OFF issues that were not part of its founding mandate.
No contradiction in this at all.
okay, thanks. i was sorta thinkin this could actually in some ways reinforce the states rights thing (indirectly, by putting the constitution as the most important). my dad wasn’t so sure. he is really suspicious of the idiot in chief.
Do you think the drop in the DC murder rate may influence this decision?
Thanks, La Enchiladita! :-)
No, I don’t believe so.
It comes down to the Constitution — the right to bear arms to defend yourself, regardless of what the murder and/or crime rate is.
It’s supposed to come down to the Constitution. I guess I was thinking about Kennedy. Some justices tend to run a little emotional I think.
Read the second link “Will McDonald Case, After All, Be Much Ado About (Relatively) Little?” that I posted above. That was a little bit of help to me.
AND tune in to Rush’s show tomorrow or check out the “Rush In A Hurry” Thread.
At the very end of his show today, Rush said that he would explain this case tomorrow.
Yes, judges are emotional (likes and dislikes) at times.
M’lady, I must thank you for your faithfulness in reporting to us from the WSJ.
:-)
Oh, no problem. No need for the thanks.
The WSJ has been doing outstanding work for the past year in particular. I’m very impressed with them.
Thanks to you for being the person that you are. :-)
Awwww... made my night:)
Yes, WSJ has been coming through splendidly.
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.