Posted on 06/26/2008 3:55:39 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat
Today is the day.
The folks at SCOTUS blog will be providing a live blog to follow developments as quickly as possible.
I hope Keith Olbermann has a meltdown and wets his pants because of this decision.
Of course, not only does he say he’ll appoint justices who will interpret the constitution, like those who voted against this decision and in the majority of the death penalty case yesterday that OBama disagreed with,
But Obama also voted AGAINST the judges who he supposedly agrees with on those two cases. So the judges he rejected rule the way they should (even according to Obama), while the judges he admires and would clone on the bench rule the wrong way (even according to Obama).
Pretty bad President, can’t even support judges who he agrees rule correctly.
The 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated into the 14th by the SCOTUS, so I don't believe this decision is binding on the states or on local governments outside the D.C. However the mere fact that the SCOTUS has upheld the originalist view that the amendment guarantees an individual right should have some weight with state and local judges in future gun law cases.
I would like to have seen a decision that would have given the 2nd the same broad application as the 1st, but at least we finally have a SCOTUS ruling that the amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and bear arms instead of merely a state's right to maintain an armed militia as the anti-gunners have claimed for the last 7 or 8 decades. It will still be a long and hard fought battle to get all of the oppressive gun laws repealed or declared unconstitutional, but this decision should give our pro-gun state and local representives and legal eagles a good weapon to fight with.
despite the LIES told by the media & the LEFT, "Miller" protects the right to be ARMED with "Militia Weapons".
otoh, "crudely sawed-off 16 guage shotguns" are NOT militia weapons (according to Miller, those weapons which are "suitable for defense of self, home, state & nation".), but "rather criminal instrumentalities, suitable to rob a liquor store".
thus a M-16, M-14, M-4, pump/automatic shotgun, 9mm pistol, .45 ACP pistol and other similar "police & military" type weapons), etc are MILITIA WEAPONS, the ownership/use of which are PROTECTED by the BOR!!
free dixie,sw
As the Court's 2003 Texas v Lawrence struck down clear precedents of multiple millennia, and it's own clear ruling about privacy rights in 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick so too is this ruling good only until cancelled, and it may be cancelled at whimsy.
Came in late because I was up too late last night. Before I read the decision and the thread 5-4 is kind of a letdown, but we’ll see what it looks like.
I forgot to mention.....
Hurray! We won!
So, Stevens is once again making stuff up out whole cloth?
Surprise, surprise...
How does any sane person come away from the amendments and conclude that the second is the only one that doesn’t grant rights to all individual citizens?
Where the bar has been significantly raised is with regard to a state or locality's attempt to "balance" its interests with gun ownership rights.
The brief further says that the ban of a whole class of firearms is unconstitutional. Then it goes on to say that MODERN WEAPONS are protected by the 2A just like modern media devices.
I believe that THIS will end any attempts in instituting a new AWB and is probably grounds for overturning the 1986 machine gun ban!
Let’s see, what type of machine gun do I want. Hmmmm...... pistol caliber or rifle caliber..... decisions, decisions....
I like Scalias thoughts here when he basically says that everywhere else in the Bill of Rights, “The Peoples Rights” equates to individual rights and therefore the argument that “Except for #2” is bogus.
Obviously nobody wrote the Bill of Rights for militias, police, and armies.
Reading the opinion is a bit tedious but well worth it..
Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein!
The Messiah must not be given power! I don't like McCain but the choice is clear.
Never forget - those four are analogs for their constituency; that is, they simply represent the views of some 40% of America.
We are not One people.
Earth to Your Alzheimers-ness: That's just about all they did for the whole Constitution, limit the tools available to elected officials. That's what the entire freakin' thing is ABOUT! Why would this be any different. AND, if by some truly bizarre chance it turned out that the Founders were a bunch of statist tyrants who wanted the goobermint to have every advantage over their employers, SHOULDN'T we be setting that right?
In a number of states, legislatures have passed laws barring t he possession of firearms by men (mostly) who have been convicted of even the slightest form of domestic violence (misdemeanors; and no use of a fire arm); many because of plea bargains when there was actually no violation because of the threat of a year in prison.
It appears to me that this ruling could be used to toss out those provisions, which I think are just a socialist attempt to take guns out of the hands of some citizens.>
What do you think?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.