ETA: more info, NRA has joined the bandwagon after first trying to derail the case. ETA2: More info from Alan Gura, one of the people paying for the legal fees to bring the case. This is a summery of his thoughts on the case written on another gun board.
I thought if the Supremes viewed the D.C. ban as clearly unconstitutional, they would have defacto upheld the lower court by refusing to hear the case.
This seems like a stupid question to me....I mean maybe I am understanding things incorrectly but looking at it....the second ammendment, written at the very beginning...when the forefathers established this country....after fighting for freedom from the british and not being an "orgaized military force" actually being private citizens putting in an ammendment to take away the guns that they themselves used to come out from under the british.....I don't know about you but to me 2+2 is still 4.....whats the question here.....come on supreme court move through this one quickly....
"..after fighting for freedom from the british and not being an "orgaized military force" actually being private citizens putting in an ammendment to take away the guns that they themselves used to come out from under the british....." Exactly. It is the clearest legislative history and personal statement on what the language they wrote and ratified means.
True. But that would have only affected the District, nowhere else. By hearing the case, we can win the whole magilla ... or lose. I read today that Justice Anthony Kennedy is expected to be the swing vote on a court divided 4-4. Somehow depending on a Kennedy to decide the most important gun case in 70 years doesn't give me the warm fuzzies. Let us pray ... Sounds like a terrible thing to say, but if Justice Kennedy gets mugged before he hears the case... I AM NOT URGING ANYONE TO MUG JUSTICE KENNEDY! :!:
Actually Kennedy is the swing vote between 5-4 and 6-3. Ginsberg is on record from an earlier Federal case in her career stating that the 2A is an Individual Right Unless she's had a change of heart, it's isn't even going to be close. That's why the left has been so quiet about it while getting states to file a ton of Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) Which states that they have a direct interest in how this case turns out. I.E. "Please find a way to vote the 2A is a "collective right" or it will nullify many of our laws as Unconstitutional and we don't want that"
Music to my ears! Grammar of the 2nd Amendment aside, why would the founders place a state right in a list of 9 other individual rights? The dissenting opinion should be amusing.
SELFDEFENSE wrote: I thought if the Supremes viewed the D.C. ban as clearly unconstitutional, they would have defacto upheld the lower court by refusing to hear the case. Netfotoj wrote: True. But that would have only affected the District, nowhere else. By hearing the case, we can win the whole magilla ... or lose. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, but it means a 1,000 battles at state and local levels could be fought from the D.C. precedent, of which we have been winning the majority lately, rather than a global decision that is likely to screw us. And the fact they did not say the lower court ruling stands, may mean there is enough opinion among the Supremes that holds the D.C. ban is not necessarily unconstitutional. Both implications I view as bad voodoo.
...any which way you look at it, the 2nd amendment is very clear. It guarantees the individual the right to keep [store at home, in car, etc...] and bear [carry, use if/when needed] arms. As pointed out before, this is an INDIVIDUAL right. The Bill Of Rights is all about INDIVIDUAL rights. If the highest court of our land calls it ANY OTHER WAY........ ....CIVAL WAR II time gents..... lest, ye shall surely deserve the government you get....... Sheep and Sheep Dogs...... or ...... Peasants and Rulers? ---------- ...this Thanksgiving, I am thankful for..... "My right to keep and bear arms is still alive.... and gaining steam...." "The founding fathers and the great wisdom with which MY bill of rights was written...." "All blood shed in the name of Freedom, Democracy, and Traditional American Values..." God Bless you ALL!!!
Some comments on the Supreme Court gun-ban case from Fred, Rudy, Romney and a startling prediction about Hillary! Fred Thompson comments: Giuliani Makes Pro-Gun Statement!?!? Rudy Giuliani made the following statement today regarding the Supreme Court's decision to review the Court of Appeals ruling in Parker v. District of Columbia: Governor Mitt Romney also issued a statement, which reads in full: Bill Quick at DailyPundit.com makes a startling prediction: Hillary will come out pro-gun?
GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS of Instapundit.com has a column in today's New York Post outlining the three options the Supreme Court has on the D.C. gun ban case:
Alan Gottlieb of the SAF on radio said he thought the questions drafted by the court were good and narrow enough to make a 7-2 decision possible in our favor. I'll believe it when I see it.
Guess who we can thank for bringing the D.C. gun-ban case all the way to the Supreme Court? Would you believe a libertarian lawyer who has never owned a gun?
