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’m not arguing the legalities. I am simply saying that Borchardt, Mauser and Browning are generally creditted with the development of semiautomatics.
I haven't gone over there to read anything (today is a happy day that I don't want to spoil, and I have, like, work to do at some point), BUT I would suspect that their "reasoning" is something along the following lines:
"Thank Gaia and her chief channeler ALGOR: now our right to buy an icky, fully automatic sniper rifle bullet hose killing machine is intact, and we'll be able to prevent Bushitler's fascist storm troopers from dragging us away to a torture cell in Gitmo for jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk."
C'mon, its DU - that's about the upper limit on reasoning for them.
You're referring to the Lautenburg Act, which is a FEDERAL law that prohibits the possession of firearms by anyone who was ever convicted of a domestic violence crime. Hundreds, probably thousands, of policemen have been forced out of their jobs by this law, not to mention many thousands more men who are also unjustly prohibited due to plea bargained convictions. This decision could have been used to overturn that federal law if not for the section which I mentioned in a previous post to you.
They probably had to compromise to some degree to get Kennedy on board to make it a majority decision. It's a victory for now, and we're better than we were
***Essentially, it did not address the registration issue....***
Presuming I grant your reading, it is a slippery slope and one that will be hard to climb. Liberals are professional cheats. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
If you consider the likely logic, it makes sense. I'll speculate and say that the basis for his statement is that if it were a slam dunk (7-2 or better), then it shouldn't even get Certiorari because the lower court would've gotten the right answer.
Talk about a verbal b*tch slap! I'm only choosing McCain to fight Obama and win the war on terror, but there are times, like this one, when I actually kinda like the guy.
Fenty would probably have his brain go into vapor lock if he ever saw the video of a contest where the .45 revolver was fired faster than the .45 semi-auto.
We're talking about politicians. The word "trust" does not apply.
In Chicago and New York, the restrictions on home possession mean that there is no CCW constituency.
If this results in Illinois and New York restrictions on ownership in the home, with the result that many people become gun owners, then there will be a constituency to agitate for "shall issue" CCW
Thanks KevKrom. I haven’t read all the way through it yet. I appreciate your take on it.
This brings up a very good point. If the Republicans want to win back Congress and hold the White House, they better get on the ball and do something to get the average gun owner out to vote. They have a golden opportunity here but I’m betting they’ll chicken-poop out and let it pass them by.
Mike
We don't need imagination, Barry has already told us.
Barack Hussein Obama, says of his nominees, “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”
John McCain says of his nominees, “The duties and boundaries of the Constitution are not just a set of helpful suggestions. They are not just guidelines to be observed when it’s convenient and loosely interpreted when it isn’t. In federal and state courts there are still men and women who understand the proper role of our judiciary and I intend to find them and promote them. My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power.”
LOL - probably.
Which is good. I like that also.
My reading is that Scalia went out of his way to point out that Heller didn't challenge the registration requirement; in other words, he explicitly put in the opinion that the question was not germane to the case at hand.
Several of his comments toward the end of the opinion seem to be laying out a "road map" of what challenges should be made to expand upon the Heller decision (the limits of "reasonable" regulation, the incorporation issue, and the issue of registration requirements).
Feel better about yourself now?
BTW, it wasn't a "grand pronouncement". It was a guess.
Bump Meek!
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.