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.
This was more of taking a pass on the license issue than approving it. They said that since HE didn’t argue the issue that that’s a good enough resolution for HIM. Doesn’t mean someone else can’t argue it; it just hasn’t been decided yet.
This settles it. It’s incredible it had to be done in the first place. The cost of enforcing our Constitutional RTKBA
in this action should have never been necessary. At least now, all those gun grabbers can sit down and shut up.
I found this unsettling: “NEW: Poll finds 67 percent of Americans say Constitution grants right to own gun.”
This means 33% of Americans polled either didn’t know, or believed Americans didn’t have the RTKBA. Who are these people?
True enough, but he did serve some notice on the more restrictive states that "arbitrary, and capricious" isn't gonna pass Constitutional muster, so cases will need to be brought forward, using the precedent held here. There *will* be further cases, and the scope of the limitations of regulation will be fleshed out.
Where this limitation of regulation will settle remains to be seen yet. What *is* established is that outright bans are *not* Constitutional...
the infowarrior
Something like this:
"Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.
A fact which he acknowledged and apologized for.
Oh, I agree. I can almost hear him saying "go ahead, make my day" -- essentially inviting these cases so he can expand on Heller.
Hooray for the Second Amendment.
Conservatives. Although some will argue there were 4.
TO get “3”, you can either reject Huckabee or Romney as not conservative, or you can reject Hunter as not a real candidate.
The point is we never had that one single conservative candidate that all the conservatives could rally behind. If we had, we could have beat McCain, who wasn’t getting 50% of the vote but was winning because the conservative vote was split between the 3 or 4 conservative candidates.
Yeah, I love it. Bush actually appoints far more conservative justices than Reagan, despite governing far to
Ronnie’s left. Go figure.
You, apparently, would fail the math TAKS test for the seventh grade.
Look up "algebraic (signed number) sums" before you take such a dumb@$$ position...
I’m choosing your post as the place where I bump this thread.
Agreed.....this is a great start, but the fight isn’t over yet....
And Scalia’s “license” quote looks more like acknowledgement of “shall-issue” over “may-issue”. In other words....if there’s no specific qualifications set into law for disqualifying a license to own or carry, it’s not Constitutional....
...we’ll win the rest later....
You think this decision by SCOTUS has the market tanking?? Please go on and explain yourself.
the reason that there were not more private artillery units in the pre-WBTS period was that it was EXPENSIVE to belong to such a unit. it would be VERY expensive today, but the FREEDOM to HAVE/BE IN such a unit is IMPORTANT, imVho.
furthermore, if i was KING for a day, i would issue EVERY honorably-discharged veteran or retiree a shoulder-fired weapon, revolver or pistol of THEIR CHOICE at ETS, with a;ll the free ammunition that the vet cared to transport to his/her HOR!!! (in about 2-3 years of that policy, NO enemy foreign or domestic would consider attacking us - to attack such a well-armed nation would be SUICIDAL!!!)
free dixie,sw
Thanks for the ping. It’s hard to believe it came in at 5-4, that there are 4 Supreme Court Justices who are so caught up in their idealogy that it affects their ability to read simple sentences.
In the early-mid 1990's then DC Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelley was practically *begging* to have the National Guard patrol the streets of DC, for an indeterminate length of time, to combat a rising crime rate.
Think about it... A mayor of the capital city of the US was wanting to place that city under martial law, indefinitely!! And this *after* a decade or more of the now-overturned ban.
I call BS on Fenty, and all other gun-grabbers! Your bans have *never* made one ordinary citizen safer, and is a recipe for martial law, and fascist government. This may be "an inconvenient truth", but it is a truth, nonetheless...
the infowarrior
"4 justices can not understand The Constitution, it'. Its simple."
On a rant about the SC taking away our rights of all kinds.
What do you think of another of Scalia’s scolds of Stevens, of whom he says that he has “...a fundamental misunderstanding of a court’s interpretive task.”
Great stuff!
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.