Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by cryptical
Edited on 03/09/2007 10:38:14 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
You got it. The 5th Circuit ruling may, may that is, have only been dicta, not necessary to reach the result the court applied. They ruled against Emerson, who was in violation of the "domestic violence misdemeanor gun ban. They did rule the second protects an individual right, but that the Lautenberg amendment did not violate that right. Personally I think they were setting up a situation where the Supreme Court would hear the appeal, due to differences among the circuits, but in the end the SC did not hear the appeal, instead refusing to hear the appeal.
Now we have a clear difference, with no question of dicta, between the circuits, which should induce the Supremes to take on the case.
The correct phrase is, "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
It's not up to me to say. But I'd say a sawed-off shotgun would qualify -- it's not a militia-type weapon.
The trench gun in WWI was 20" and had a bayonet lug. That certainly qualifies.
"great cause for celebration."
I've never been much of a fan of the "take 'em to court" strategy. Given the decisions we've seen out of the courts in the last 30-40 years, I'm concerned about the risk of losing if we *do* actually end up with a case in front of the Supreme Court.
I'm in the minority opinion on this, but I think the SCOTUS has done us something of a favor by refusing to hear 2nd Amendment cases. Why do we want to risk losing in the courts when we're already winning in the legislatures?
I think that this case has a chance of making it to the SCOTUS. If so, I hope I'm proven wrong in my concerns. In the mean time, it will be fun to watch the gungrabbing socialists in dc wail and gnash their teeth.
"Thanks for being who you are, but still, I find the Democratic party utterly repulsive. Not that the current Republicans are much better, mind you."
Oh, I find socialism repulsive as well. But it's a lot more fun to be a conservative amongst Democrats than it is to be a conservative amongst Republicans. And frankly, it has at least the potential to be a lot more effective.
Preaching the choir is comfortable, but it doesn't accomplish much.
"Announced presidential candidate NM Governor Richardson is pro-gun rights. As governor of NM he has to be pro-gun or face the NM voters with a big strike against him."
That's the nature of populist politics. In most times, a Democrat has to tack toward the right on various issues in order to be elected.
Unfortunately, I think that right now and for the next few years we're living in a period that will prove to be the exception. A radical leftist can and probably will be elected in 2008. That's not a reflection of a sea change in the underlying political philosophy of the public, just the result of GOP incompetence and the unwillingness of most conservatives to play pragmatic politics with regard to the two major parties. They'll stick with the GOP regardless of what they do.
Conservatives are truly the battered spouses of American politics.
But you can shout fire in a crowded theater, if there is a fire. The government cannot tape your mouth shut because you might shout fire when there is no fire, which would be analogous to gun control, which bans keeping and bearing guns because of what you might do with them.
In both cases they seek to prevent harm, but end up preventing people from doing good. (Although many gun controllers don't think defending yourself is a "Good Thing", they'd rather you just give up your stuff, and possibly your life, to the freelance socialists)
According to who? I don't find that in the text. All my copy says about possessing arms is "the right of the people...shall not be infringed." I defined terms in my last post. Do you disagree with the plain English definitions? The trench gun in WWI was 20" and had a bayonet lug. That certainly qualifies.
Hmmm. But if you saw 3" off that trench gun, it no longer is? How about modern shotguns used by the military that lack the bayonet lug, they don't qualify? One shotgun is and another isn't based on functionally insignificant differences? Is that from the Brady website or did your boss tell you that?
Oh, your last question One last ditty. Who decides if the weapon is suitable? The Miller case was remanded because the suitability was in question. Think about it. Who is in the only position to make that determination?, I reject the premise as I explained in my last post.Except to say the one in the best position to make that determination is the one who has to buy it, provide ammo for it and become proficient with it.
Thats a good question. If the Supreme Court were to uphold this ruling, then 1022 would likely be declared unconstitutional by any federal court which heard a challenge to it, which won't stop the DemonRats from passing it of course.
But as long as the decision only applies to the DC circuit, then a challenge to the law would probably be made there, but would that mean that the law was only null and void there? I would think so, since that is the case in other circuits where federal laws have been declared unconstitutional, but where the Supreme Court has neither upheld nor reversed those rulings.
Good point. Rudy's apologists will cheer his dishonesty on.
Still waiting for the quote.
[crickets]
That would not be an appeal, just a en banc hearing.
I don't think the judges who comprised the original panel are generally excluded from the en banc hearing, but I'm not real certain of that The district will likely ask for one, if they haven't already. The circuit court might deny that request, leaving the District's only choice, unless they want to defy the courts, to be to appeal to the Supreme Court. Again the Supreme Court can deny the appeal, in which case the ruling stands, but only applies in the DC circuit. If they hear the case and uphold the ruling, then it applies to the whole country, and we win a big battle bu the war to defend the second amendment will go on.
If the Supremes reverse, the second amendment is a dead letter, and we might as well get it on now, not later when we are disarmed, which with demonrats in charge of Congress will happen sooner rather than later.
This is why you are a Brady Troll. The AA-12 and 16" "Master Key" are both in current military use. You say you are for RKBA, but then do everything you can to argue against it.
You might want to keep your fingers off the keyboard if you aren't going to do any research at all...
if nothing else, this ruling should flush the grabbers out of their camouflageing rhetoric and expose them undeniably.
It's sure working that way here & now.
robertpaulsen:
Your trolling is spoiling a good thread on an important issue. Go back to USENET!
And others: PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!
By coincidence, I was in Washington when that incident occurred.
The newspapers were full of it for about 5 minutes, and then it seemed to me that the complete hypocrisy was ignored by the media.
Nice of you to bring it up again here. ;D
It's a bit more than that. First of all it's a federal court. Second it's on the same level as the other numbered circuit courts of appeal, where it is often considered "First among equals".
Because this is a DC law that is being challenged, it just means that it's federal case from the beginning, since Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the district, even if they delegated some of that to the DC city council. That means that it's a clear cut case of what the second amendment means, with no intervening question of whether it applies to state government infringements.
Missed that part. Sorry.
Any bets on what the Supremes will do?
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.