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.
Yes! Yes, but ... it's not only the Court that is the problem there, in that usurpation since the wimpy yet devastating ruling in Marbury. It's a matter of the other branches and sovereigns -- the Executive, the Legislative, the States, the People -- TAKING BACK what was wrongfully taken from us. Of being adults, sane, sober, responsible -- and refusing to let a thief prosper. Mice or men stuff.
Today the Court rules over a kingdom of mice. Where are the rulings of men?
Can we get the NRA to sue on 14th Amendment grounds that unless the tools of free speech and press are subject to permit (Carry Concealed Bic?), than the tools of defense ought not either?
Wow, 4 decades in LEO! God Bless You!
Hope you are well.
Okay. I’ll try to learn to trust Obama as you suggest.
Whoo Hoo!!!
“We came one vote away from losing our rights. That’s scary.”
Yep. I’m glad we won, but that vote is WAY too close for comfort. I guess I was being naive, but I expected the majority would be larger. This shows how important the upcoming election is as far as the makeup of the Court.
The dims and independents elected McVain in the rotton open primaries of our first half dozen primaries. 90% of Conservatives never even really had a vote in this go-around.
I , as well as all other registered Republicans were thrown under the bus in favor of dims and squishy independents in a few Eastern states. McVain wonders why he gets no $$$$$$. Does he really expect dims and the squishy middle to donate heavily? Does he really think dims and the linguini spined middle would raise hell in another Floriduh fiasco on his behalf?
While many of us feel compelled to vote for him, some do not, but remember ...... McPain and the RINO section of the party rejected we who are on the right.
If the primary system of our party is not corrected by 2012, I will look to another party .
Nam Vet
That is a priceless photo!
Isn’t that Sister Annie Sure Shot, second from the left?
I'm conjecturing their agreement centered on not changing SCOTUS precident.
In further reading, the decision is somewhat bipolar. On one hand it says that an entire class of weapons cannot be banned and then it says that modern weapons are protected by the 2A and then it goes on to say that since machine guns are not “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” or “in common use” they CAN be banned.
They have tried to walk a tightrope and failed. Can the government outlaw a gun because it is not “in common use” when the reason it is not “in common use” because the government has outlawed it?
Don't you mean "hugh?"
LOL!
I'm series, now...
So, then Kennedy needs replaced, is what you’re saying.
None, that I can see. Laws resticting gun ownership are different from laws restricting killing a home invader, no matter how bad he may have needed killing.
Obama SIDESTEPPED the question at that creepy presser with the anal-retentively starched flags in the background. I predicted before the ruling that he's support whatever decision was made, then claim it was the same position he's had all along.
otoh, "crudely sawed-off shotguns" are NOT "militia weapons" but rather are "criminal instrumentalities", which are NOT protected by the Constitution.
therefore, the LEFT can kiss an "assault weapons ban" (and MAYBE the "NFA", too ===> "Honey, i want a 1907 Maxim with all the trimmings for Christmas. Can you get one for me???" = rotfLOL!) "bye-bye".
free dixie,sw
For those wishing Credit/Debit card use, click on FR home, and click on donate!
I am a Mac user, and have no clue about what they do, but I appreciate the end result!
Thanks again, Jim! Keep it up, FR, that is...
- take out the New York ban on hand guns
- take out any home gun lock laws.
- Challenge ownership prohibitions for misdemeanors.
This gets a big Texas
YEEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWWW!
I’ve never been more proud of (5/9 of) the Supreme Court than today, EVER.
The Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right!
No federal gun bans on handguns, rifles and shotguns, EVER! No federal requirements for trigger locks, EVER!
Self-defense is SPECIFICALLY protected by the 2nd.
_________________________
OK, now what are the implications?
First, politically: is BHO going to shoot himself in the foot (pun intended) by criticizing this decision, and stating that he’ll nominate more judges and Justices like Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg & Breyer? I sure hope so. What will McCain say? It is really his fight to lose on this issue, and a tremendous opportunity to distinguish himself from that socialist rat.
Second, legally: a couple of issues here...
1. Incorporation - I’m sure that we’ll see a case filed challenging Chicago’s ban on handguns (all guns?) by no later than Labor Day (and I think it would be appropriate to file it on July 2, the anniversary of the ACTUAL day that the Declaration of Independence was signed), based heavily on the words of this case. I am STRONGLY ENCOURAGED by this decision - even though the level of scrutiny for analyzing firearms laws was purposely not mentioned, the language about the basic nature of the right of self-defense (esp. in one’s home) leads me to believe that the 2nd will be incorporated within 2-3 years at most.
2. Full autos - I’m also encouraged here. Yes, the decision did say that the 2nd wasn’t blanket protection of a right to own any weapon under any circumstances by any person, BUT it didn’t foreclose any particular weapons. It mentioned the Miller standard of protecting “arms in common use at the time.” Well, folks, full autos are standard issue in all of the armies of the world, and have been for roughly 50 years. In addition, full autos have never been illegal at the federal level in this country, only regulated - most of us can still buy an honest-to-goodness Tommy Gun, for instance, so long as we have a fat wallet and jump through some regulatory hurdles. The only reason why full autos are not more common now is that a ban has been in place for 22 years. SO, IMHO, I think that the Court will invalidate the ‘86 ban (though almost certainly NOT the’34 NFA and its regulatory framework, even though NICS does essentially the same thing - that’s a different battle). Me, I’d like to see the case brought by an ex-Special Forces member with an utterly spotless record and reputation, who already owns a pre-ban full auto and who was denied the opportunity to pay for a tax stamp for a virtually identical post-ban gun.
3. OK, here’s where we get to have a bit of fun: Does any Congresscritter have the cajones to begin the impeachment process against Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg & Breyer?
What do y’all say?
This worries me. It overturns the notion that arms useful for military service are protected."
Not so at all: this merely says that Miller ONLY addresses the issue of what kinds of weapons are "militia weapons", useful for military service, and that it does NOT require actual service in the militia to qualify to bear them.
Be very careful not to read this decision selectively.
Yep, I will vote for McCain because of the troops and the Supreme Court. If Obama is able to appoint several young liberal judges, our nation will go downhill fast. This vote was closer than I anticipated ... scary stuff. I know some want to make McCain pay, but if Obama’s elected, it’s my children who will pay.
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.