*LIVE THREAD* DC vs Heller decision due at 10:00 EST (2nd Amendment)

SCOTUS Blog ^ | 6-26-08 | shameless vanity

[RKBA Democrat]

Today is the day.

The folks at SCOTUS blog will be providing a live blog to follow developments as quickly as possible.

[Fox_Mulder77]

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

My favorite part!!!

[Red Badger]

Carl Rowan is spinning in his grave.............

[Orange1998]

Washington DC is recognized to have the same rights as everyone else. This means the people can form a Militia and protect themselves from anyone including the Government.

[kevkrom]

More ripping on Stevens:

14 Faced with this clear historical usage, JUSTICE STEVENS resorts to the bizarre argument that because the word “to” is not included before “bear” (whereas it is included before “petition” in the First Amendment), the unitary meaning of “to keep and bear” is established. Post, at 16, n. 13. We have never heard of the proposition that omitting repetition of the “to” causes two verbs with different meanings to become one. A promise “to support and to defend the Constitution of the United States” is not a whit different from a promise “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

More meat:

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . ."

[EdReform]

The RIGHT Of The PEOPLE
To KEEP And BEAR ARMS
SHALL NOT Be Infringed!

[mware]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slx8CCjoL4E

[Jonah Hex]

So, given the Supreme Court today upheld the individual citizen's right to bear arms, what are the odds the ACLU will now start backing gun owners?

(checks Hell's thermometer for frost)

Yeah, that's about what I thought.

[PapaBear3625]

But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

[jmc813]

Interestingly, DU is treating this positively so far...has hell frozen over?

I actually scan some of their 2nd Amendment threads occasionally. There are actually some very articulate pro-gun posters over there who just happen to be morons on almost everything else.

[popdonnelly]

“the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials”

That’s exactly what they did. Should elected officials have unlimited “tools” to regulate free speech? Stevens doesn’t understand the Constitution.

[NewJerseyJoe]

Look at Scalia's language concerning Stevens!

And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is “primarily collective in nature.” (footnote 5)

Absolutely Smashing!!!

[Tammy8]

I am amazed at the power they have too, we can thank Chief Justice John Marshall who engineered the power grab back in 1803. I don’t think it is a good thing either.

[SunStar]

That a court ruling on this was even necessary is very disturbing.

Nah... The gun grabbers have come too close. This needed to be affirmed. Why have the Supreme Court at all if not to rule on constitutionality of laws?

[CAluvdubya]

WOW! I guess I jumped the gun here! I’m shocked by their ruling...DOUBLE WOW!

Okay, the world is righted now. LOL

I sure was baffled by your first post and wondered what I'd missed!

[Vaquero]

Thank you President Bush for reconsidering the Harriet Meirs choice....

if it were not for the tons of conservative negative feedback on the Meirs appointment by Bush, we would probably be royaly screwed on this Heller decision.

[Double Tap]

Just bumping to be part of this great news.

[TonyInOhio]

This is not only about McCain. He doesn’t stand a chance of adding a conservative judge if the Senate is full of Libs.

You're right, of course, but there's no question about the type of nominee Barry would send to the Senate. No question.

This, alone, is reason enough for me to support John McCain.

[Prokopton]

This is why I'm voting for McCain. Imagine the type of person Barry would nominate to join the Leftist Four on the Court!

McCain is not a conservative and would be facing a Democrat Senate. McCain understands there is no way the Senate would approve a SCOTUS justice even moderately conservative. In the spirit of bipartisanship, McCain would "reach across the aisle" and, with the advise of his friend Kennedy, would nominate a liberal/moderate that the Democrats would approve.

[bvw]

The assault weapons ban will never be back.

Texas v Lawrence overturned current and recent rulings by the Court, not to mention thousands of years of established precedents, definitions and wisdom. The Court rules whatever it wants whenever it wants.

It will come for the guns. Not right now, but now -- with the gun lobby defanged and molly-cated and pleasured by Heller -- the chances are so much higher that a near future court packed with emotional will-of-the-wisps will overrule. They'll take guns. They'll take knifes. They might even take our forks -- if we are submissive they could leave spoons, bowls and straws though.

[mewzilla]

Stevens doesn’t understand the Constitution.

Oh, I think he understand it quite well. He just thinks he knows better than the Founding Fathers.