Boston Globe Sounds Early Panic Over DC Vs. Heller

The Nav Log ^ | 11/27/07 | ltn72

[dashing doofus]

I mean, who can legitimately argue with the following impeccable logic of the Newsday editors?:

And a sweeping decision could mean that the nation would soon be awash in ever more firearms.

With an estimated 192 million privately owned guns already in the country, that we don't need.

[bill1952]

I believe that the SC has already ruled that Felons are held apart from some of the normal federal protections afforded law abiding citizens.

It is up to the respective states, just like voting.

[Old Professer]

Maybe they are trying to parley this into a back-door grab for statehood...

[bill1952]

>They haven’t been able to find one example of where it led to such an outcome

Don’t go there. Sure they can. Think about it.

[rabscuttle385]

From the Newsday editorial: The Supreme Court shouldn't reverse this settled law.

What fools. Any legislation or precedent case can and should be reversed if it contradicts the U.S. Constitution.

[bill1952]

>And a sweeping decision could mean that the nation would soon be awash in ever more firearms.

Were they all legal and owned by law abiding citizens, then I see that as an entirely good thing.

After all, I’m willing to bet that a sizable number of people are killed or injured by unlicensed drivers, but I don’t see the liberal trash calling to ban or outlaw automobiles for every law abiding citizen.

At least, not yet ...

[bill1952]

>The Supreme Court shouldn't reverse this settled law.

It is not settled law.

That is the one point that is settled

[Ravenstar]

I believe they both did! But DC I believe was the first to do so.

Ravenstar

[NonValueAdded]

Massachusetts should ask itself how many of those responding to the Lexington alarm would fall outside the conventional definition of militia (too old). Answer, we’d be looking to our Queen (and I don’t mean D-4) today for guidance on the matter.

[ChuteTheMall]

Maybe it will backfire, and what remains of DC will rightfully be returned to Maryland, giving all residents the full representation with taxation they seem to crave.

We don’t really need a District of Columbia, just some federal property within the City of Washington.

[Plutarch]

...plunging the justices into a divisive and long-running debate

Nope, you can't have these Justices plunging into debates on the Constitution. Obviously not what they are supposed to be doing.

[Old Professer]

They could always go back to Philadelphia.

[mad_as_he$$]

This is funny. There is a strong argument to be made that the Constitution ONLY applies to DC and other Federal “zones”. McCulloch v. Maryland.

[jalisco555]

Maybe it will backfire, and what remains of DC will rightfully be returned to Maryland, giving all residents the full representation with taxation they seem to crave.

A whole lot better than DC statehood, which is an issue that will resurface if the Dems win the White House.

[dashing doofus]

But, but but, we are “awash” with SUVs, and now the polar icecaps are melting. The newsday editors know what they are whining about...

[Plutarch]

Obscure meaning:

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.

This wouldn't have obscure meaning:

A well regulated public health system being necessary to the health of the State, the right of the People to perform and have abortions shall not be infringed.

[kabar]

The District of Columbia, of course, is not a state, and one of the arguments its lawyers are making in their appeal is that the Second Amendment simply does not apply to "legislation enacted exclusively for the District of Columbia...

Does that mean that the Constitution doesn't apply to DC at all, including if it passes legislation that is unconstitutional? Nonsense.

[Deguello]

If statehood is a requirement, does the US Constitution apply to Puerto Rico?

[dashing doofus]

I think they are ok with the “plunging” part, but they don’t like the “divisive” part, because that implies that some of the comments may be mean-spirited. ;-)

[AU72]

The Supreme Court shouldn't reverse this settled law.

Plessey vs Furgeson was settled law.