The Supreme Court's Gun Showdown

Wall Street Journal ^ | 06/28/10 | RANDY BARNETT

[BCrago66]

There is a remarkable academic consensus that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms against interference by state governments. Yesterday's Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago affirmed that this is indeed the case. It is, therefore, a great victory for enforcing the original meaning of the Constitution. Thankfully for the rights of Americans, the Chicago gun ban at issue will soon be consigned to the dust bin of history.

[BCrago66]

The subtitle is:

Thanks to five Justices, the right to keep and bear arms is now protected from state interference. Thanks to Clarence Thomas, an important clause in the Constitution has risen from the grave.

[Sun]

I just hope the cities don’t make the regulations so tough that we are back to Square One.

[SpaceBar]

It’s a victory, but still just one vote shy of tyranny. A little too close for comfort.

[FunkyZero]

"I just hope the cities don’t make the regulations so tough that we are back to Square One."

Shorty is in a tizzy about this already... promising to pass new ordinances to make it too hard and too expensive to get one. In other words, he's planning on doing what DC did and most likely on a more communistic scale... if that's even possible.

I hope they get their little hands slapped for circumventing a decision of the SCOTUS and the constitution itself. Jail time would be appropriate if you ask me.

[BCrago66]

If anyone clicks the link and only gets an abbreviate version of the WSJ article, click on this link to a Google page:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Unlike+Bakke,+lower+courts+will+not+have+to+follow+Justice+Thomas%27s+%22

...and then click the 2nd link from the top.

[counterpunch]

There is a remarkable academic consensus that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms

There is?
I thought the 14th Amendment gives illegals the right to keep and bear children as US citizens...
 

[Mere Survival]

It’s a victory, but still just one vote shy of tyranny. A little too close for comfort.
__________________________________________________________

Yah. Time to get serious about politics or lose all the marbles. And by marbles I mean freedom. Republics don’t really come back from tyranny in the histories I know. So we need the Presidency and need to keep it . . . and no more Souters or Stevens or . . .

[23 Everest]

The 2nd Amendment:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What is there to argue about? Especially in today’s climate of total government take over & re-distribution of wealth. A.K.A. SOCIALISM.

[EagleUSA]

If we had two things, we could remedy this anti-Constitution effort:

(1) A conservative, pro-Constitution president
(2) February, 2013
(3) A departing liberal activist justice

[SandRat]

Chicago is threatening to do just that according to the Daley Machine.

[Mojave]

There is a remarkable academic consensus that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms against interference by state governments.

It's "remarkable" that the ratifying states didn't know about this heretofore secret and just discovered "meaning."

[Mojave]

I thought the 14th Amendment gives illegals the right to keep and bear children as US citizens...

The right to keep and bear arms now stands on the same legal foundation as anchor babies and the right to commit sodomy. Just great...

[Razz Barry]

Shorty is in a tizzy about this already... promising to pass new ordinances to make it too hard and too expensive to get one. In other words, he's planning on doing what DC did and most likely on a more communistic scale... if that's even possible.

I hope they get their little hands slapped for circumventing a decision of the SCOTUS and the constitution itself. Jail time would be appropriate if you ask me.

Me too. To enact laws with the intent to violate the Constitution and deny citizens their rights should result in, the very least, jail time. They are knowingly violating their oath of office. I'd like this to be talked up.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Thanks to Clarence Thomas, an important clause in the Constitution has risen from the grave.

Amen! He found justification elsewhere than the 2nd Amendment. That did two things: 1) It skirted the individual vs militia argument and 2) by citing the guarantees in the 14th Amendment, which dealt in part with freed slaves, it determined that the 2nd Amendment was accepted law.

In order to argue against that the liberals will now have to argue about the rights granted to everyone, especially blacks, and that will be a sticky wicket for them.

[Sun]

“Jail time would be appropriate if you ask me. “

ABSOLUTELY jail time. They should not be allowed to get away with this!