Heck it'd have an impact on the GOP primaries as well.
In other words, the press and party bosses are forced to reckon with it yet again.
What I'm wondering is if all of those who were wrongly prosecuted by D.C. for violating their unconstitutional gun law are going to get fair restitution for the damages they suffered!
The appeals court ruling appalls advocates of gun control laws and should alarm the Democratic Party ... That is not in the interest of the Democratic Party, which is supported by most ardent supporters of gun control.
Hey Georgie, don't forget gun grabbing 'republican' Rudy Julie-Annie.
This ruling 'prolly' gave him nightmares. Heck he's likely still on heavy doses of Prozac. This naturally goes double Rudy's gun grabbing butt buddy, 'republican', Bloomberg.
If the Supremes take this on, it will be a huge issue in `08.
I doubt this decision will hurt the GOP any. It should only embolden 2nd Amendment advocates.
Most NRA-types are among the least partisan voters out there, and would be far more likely to support a Democrat who champions the Second Amendment than a Republican (are you listening, Mr. Giuliani?) who doesn't.
For anyone who wants to see the article, it's on FreeRepublic:
However as we've already seen how within the first MONTH of the the Dems grabbing the House they have already pushed for a much wider gun grab than the Brady Gun Bill ever did.
History shows that nothing energizes the GOP base that a GUN GRAB and after the Clinton/Gore/Reno/Brady Gun ban went into effect the GOP handed the DemonRatz their collective A$$E$ and swept to power in the House & Senate and collectively swept away all the Anti-Gun/Anti-Freedom creeps.
Every time the importance of the first or second amendment is mentioned, it should force everyone to look at the embarrassment of the "unwanted child" that is the tenth amendment.
It can best be said that the tenth amendment is "the federal government death penalty" amendment, because if it is ever enforced, it would be the end of the federal government as we know it.
It is the last step before the States are forced to convene a constitutional convention, which has no limits in how it can re-write the constitution. And to every suspicion, far worse than it is now.
But for now, the perpetually squeamish SCOTUS will now hopefully decide if individual citizens are the militia, and if "well regulated" means that the government may restrict the right to bear "some" arms, based in reason instead of absolutes.
Well, duh. I'm glad at least 2 out of 3 actually noticed that. It should have been 3-0, but I'll take what I can get!
>>>George Will wrote: "When Madison and others fashioned the Bill of Rights, they did not merely constitutionalize -- make fundamental -- the right to bear arms. They made the Second Amendment second only to the First, which protects the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and worship."<<<
George misstated the history of the 1st and 2nd Amendments (it is a common mistake). The founders considered all the Amendments equally important. During the ratification debate the proposed Amendments were call "Articles". The 2nd Amendment was originally the 5th Article. Later it became the 4th Article when the 3rd and 4th were merged into the 3rd Article. The 4th Article became the 2nd Amendment by default when the states failed to ratify the 1st and 2nd Articles. For the same reason the 3rd Article became the 1st Amendment by default.
For the record, the two proposed Amendments that failed ratification were as follows:
Article I. After the first enumeration, required by the first article of the constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not be less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.
Art. II. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened.
Only time will tell.