Boston Globe Sounds Early Panic Over DC Vs. Heller

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

[Old Professer]

No. Yes. ???

http://www.topuertorico.org/history6.shtml

[Old Professer]

The link above takes you to page six (scroll down) the timeline begins on page five so it would have been better if I had done that before sending the link.

All-in-all, it’s fascinating.

[Kenton]

The Supreme Court last looked at the Second Amendment nearly 70 years ago in United States v. Miller, a 1939 decision that suggested, without explicitly deciding, that the right should be understood in connection with service in a militia...(this is just a plain lie, but what we've come to expect from the Globe)

Aw come on. Anybody can go online and read US v Miller for themselves. The ruling simply stated that the sawed off shotgun in question wasn't particularly appropriate for use by the militia.

Conversely, if Miller had been toting a Ma Deuce, using the same logic, it would have been protected, because that sure as hell DOES have a use appropriate to a militia.

And nowhere in the ruling does it state that membership in any organized militia (such as the NG) is in any way prerequisite for firearms ownership, it assumes that as a member of the People, he was in the militia.

US v Miller is some of the crappiest law ever ruled on, if for no other reason than it simply muddied the water where it was quite clear before.

[wastedyears]

If that’s the case, then why doesn’t anybody in DC own a slave or 10? Liberal argument is that the Constitution only applies to a state, right?

[sr4402]

The Supreme Court will probably rule against individuals owning guns. The next step, logically would be, for folks who want guns to sign up and register with a militia. Then when the district tries to take there guns, they reply that they are a member of a militia and thereby have the right to bare arms.

I hope it doesn't come to that. But given the current court...

[HeartlandOfAmerica]

Well, DUH.

The 2nd Amendment, like the other nine, are MY protection against the govt, not the GOVT'S protection against me!!!

[Kenton]

The Supreme Court will probably rule against individuals owning guns.

I don't think so. I think this case will sink the "collective right" argument.

The next step, logically would be, for folks who want guns to sign up and register with a militia. Then when the district tries to take there guns, they reply that they are a member of a militia and thereby have the right to bare arms.

Well, I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but that's exactly what happened back at the beginning of the Clinton Administration. And Clinton and Janet Reno spent the next 8 years pursuing the "evil right-wing militias" while the islamist enemy was ignored.

Besides, the official US militia is made up of all males between the ages of 17 and 45, and in the historic sense, it was all males capable of bearing arms for the common defense. You don't need to join anything, you're already in the militia.

[rabscuttle385]

So was Dred Scott.

And, so was Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company, but the liberals had no problem taking care of the latter with the Sixteenth Amendment.

[rabscuttle385]

Liberal argument is that the Constitution only applies to a state, right?

The liberal argument is that they know better than the rest of us, Constitution be damned.

[Panzerlied]

“The Supreme Court shouldn’t reverse this settled law...”

I wonder if they said the same thing for “Brown vs The Board of Education”?

Keep the settled Jim Crow laws the same, eh Newspeak?

[Travis McGee]

Typical bed-wetting liberals.

[traviskicks]

"...wealthy libertarian lawyer, Robert A. Levy, who created and financed the lawsuit for the purpose of getting a Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court."    
 
 
 
 Libertarian  ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[traviskicks]

LOL!

[Deguello]

"No. Yes. ???"

It kind of goes back & forth with a SCOTUS ruling in the early century and then in the 50's granting them the 14th Amendment (can one grant just parts of the Constitution?) through later giving Puerto Rico Commonwealth status which is what several states like to call themselves on official documents.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

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...

So they are basically saying that the bill of rights does not apply to the district? How 'bout that for a can of worms!

Regards,
GtG

[LurkedLongEnough]

This part sounds good, but was meant to sound 'bad':

"The impact of the decision, either way, is bound to effect the 2008 elections."

[Still Thinking]

They are in effect saying that the Constitution does not apply to DC.

Which would be silly enough on its face. Making it even more untenable is the fact that DC has already argued in other cases that the BOR DOES apply within their borders. Can't have it both ways, now can we?

[Still Thinking]

Bet they didn’t mind when Miller clouded the issue. Personally, I don’t think Miller is that bad for us, if read correctly, but they seem to think it is, so that shows they don’t mind overturning settled law if they don’t like the law.

[billmor]

“The impact of the decision, either way, is bound to effect the 2008 elections

wow...good point...and if individual gun ownership is banned all the Rep candidate has to say is ‘I’m for gun ownership and I will sign new legislation to clarify the 2nd Amdnement to allow gun ownership’...That alone may swing some Dem’RAT voters and independents...

[mombrown1]

Too dangerous in Philly also. They want to ban guns.