High court to look at ban on handguns

McClatchy-Tribune ^ | Nov. 9, 2007, 12:18AM | MICHAEL DOYLE

[publiusF27]

This is beginning to remind me of our long and fruitless discussion about the words “in light of” regarding the then-pending revised decision in the Stewart case.

Why should I prove something I never asserted and don’t believe?

How about this? All federal court districts except the 5th and the DC Circuit subject us to a collectivist interpretation of the 2A. The Brady Bunch wants to see it go back to being ALL federal court districts, period. Is that what you want as well?

[publiusF27]

Let’s examine the subset of Crips and Bloods who don’t have a felony conviction just to keep things more simple.

Do those non-felons have the right to vote? Freedom of speech? Can they hold office? Right to a speedy trial? Right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures?

[snoringbear]

“A very sad commentary in how far the Court has drifted—we literally don’t know wether or not they will go by the letter of the law anymore.”

Agree. However, I am in favor of this going to the Supremes as this particular line-up is probably the most favorable that we Conservatives will have for some time.

[publiusF27]

Why do you want to dig up the racist roots of gun control?

[Mojave]

Let’s examine the subset of Crips and Bloods who don’t have a felony conviction just to keep things more simple.

Let's see if you'll even answer the question after modifying it.

Are unconvicted Crips and Bloods the militia?

[Mojave]

Why do you want to dig up the racist roots of gun control?

The original militia act limited the militia to whites. Why do you want a whites only militia?

[Mojave]

All federal court districts except the 5th and the DC Circuit subject us to a collectivist interpretation of the 2A.

Do all state courts?

[robertpaulsen]

"It was a "positive" ruling by Ginsberg as regards to the language of the BoR and its scope."

The case had nothing to do with the language of the BoR or its scope. The case had nothing to do with the second amendment or its scope.

The case concerned the language of 18 USC section 924(c)(1) -- a person who "uses or carries a firearm". The defendant had a firearm locked in the glove compartment of his car. The question to the court was, "Does that constitute "carry" and, therefore, violate 18 USC section 924(c)(1)?

Now, maybe you can tell me how Ginsburg's ruling (no) in that case means she will rule that the second amendment protects an individual right to keep and bears arms?

[publiusF27]

Are unconvicted Crips and Bloods the militia?

Sure, if they're male citizens between 17 and 45...

************************************

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

************************************

I don't see any exemption for Crips or Bloods. Do you? Can they vote?

[robertpaulsen]

"How does ruling the Second an inalienable individual Right do that?"

An inalienable individual Right to do what?

Oh, you say, "An inalienable individual Right to keep and bear arms". Fine. And if the U.S. Supreme Court says "to bear arms" does not include carrying them around, then what? How is that in our benefit over what we have today?

[publiusF27]

Is a state court contemplating hearing a 2nd amendment case? Start a thread about it and ping me. This thread is about the Supreme Court.

[publiusF27]

And if the U.S. Supreme Court says "to bear arms" does not include carrying them around, then what? How is that in our benefit over what we have today?

It wouldn't be a benefit or a detriment to me. It would be exactly the situation I'm in today. The second amendment doesn't currently protect any of my guns, nor the uses to which I put them.

[robertpaulsen]

"it should apply the 2nd Amendment to protect individuals from oppression by the states"

Exactly. Just like the U.S. Supreme Court used the first amendment to protect us from hearing that boring political speech in the months preceeding an election. And isn't it wonderful that all states must allow nude dancing and flag burning because that IS protected speech.

Or how they protected us from those religious zealots who want to establish religion by keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or setting up a creche at Christmas Winter Holiday Season in the town square, or invoking God's name at high school commencement.

Yep. I think we can expect those same justices to expand our gun freedoms. There's no way they're going to rule that "keep" means keep in a state armory, or that "bear" does not mean concealed carry, or that "arms" do not include handguns.

No way.

[robertpaulsen]

"It wouldn't be a benefit or a detriment to me. It would be exactly the situation I'm in today."

You wouldn't say that about Kelo. Why would you say it about guns?

[publiusF27]

You wouldn't say that about Kelo. Why would you say it about guns?

Not so fast. Before Kelo, my property could be taken and given to a private developer if some politician said that doing so served a public use. After Kelo, my property could be taken and given to a private developer if some politician said that doing so served a public use. What changed, again?

Oh yeah, there was some legislative backlash when the current state of the law made headlines due to the Court decision ratifying the current state of affairs, and I think the same could happen re the 2A.

[robertpaulsen]

"Before Kelo, my property could be taken and given to a private developer if some politician said that doing so served a public use."

What are you talking about? Florida's eminent domain law protected your property from Kelo-type abuses.

[tacticalogic]

Nice. The whole thing was a race bait setup from the beginning. I’ll bet you learned that in Washington.

[publiusF27]

OK, what I should have said was that before and after Kelo, the prevailing interpretation of the 5th amendment in federal courts did not change much at all. I know I’m lucky to be a Floridian. ;-)

If the SC takes the Parker/Heller case and makes the ruling that amici like the Brady Bunch want to see, the prevailing interpretation of the 2A in federal courts would not change much at all, except in the 5th Circuit. (The DC circuit is under an order which preserves the prevailing interpretation there pending the outcome of SC cert.)

[publiusF27]

There's no way they're going to rule that "keep" means keep in a state armory, or that "bear" does not mean concealed carry, or that "arms" do not include handguns.

What if they did? I'm not in the National Guard, so right now my right to keep my arms enjoys no 2A protection (except the pointed stick). My FL concealed weapons permit enjoys no 2A protection right now. In DC, they can't have a handgun, and the Brady Bunch say that's just fine, and represents the prevailing interpretation of the 2A.

[Dead Corpse]

Backed by your word.

Backed by the Constitution. You know, that document that you refuse to read...