Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Tomorrow - June 26, 2008

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

Exactly, he said nothing. Just means he opened it up to another round of interpretations by lower courts.....which means we will see this back in the SCOTUS again if the NRA doesn't like what they come up with. Seems like this is going to get messy.

Well, the issue of where to draw those lines was not an issue. The issue was solely related to whether prohibiting a functional handgun in a private residence is across the line. The court said it was.

Now, it is up to other cases to determine exactly where that line is drawn in the future. Expect 20 years of it before we have any real ideas.

Do you feel that the milita or individual question was finally answed in this ruling?

I think it is very very clear but, I am not a lawyer

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Feingold and Kagen were among 320 members of Congress that signed a brief supporting the overturning of the ban.

So much for those 'crazy' activist liberal democrats.

There's plenty more to make up for the few that have sense...

>> Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. "This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future." <<

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Judges are apointed however. Judges are not supposed to play as a legislator can. They are not to judge based on thier biases. (I know that bias will always have some impact)

Interesting that Scalia feels that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it" should be interpreted but the 2nd shouldn't. It makes me question on how he will approach the 4th since he is a strong proponent of textualism.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Judges are apointed however. Judges are not supposed to play as a legislator can. They are not to judge based on thier biases. (I know that bias will always have some impact)

Interesting that Scalia feels that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it" should be interpreted but the 2nd shouldn't. It makes me question on how he will approach the 4th since is is a strong proponent of textualism.

I guess I do not think they are even close to the same thing.

IMO the Constitution is not open to new world interpitation. It should be interpeted only within the context the framers used and meant.

Now, the 2nd has taken some time but IMO was decided correctly for the vary reasons listed in the decision. And when one looks at how the anti gunners tried to use the Miller decsion to back up thier claims it becomes clear (to me anyway) that they could not argue this within the Constitutional meaning of the 2nd.

Anyway, I ramble but, I do think the issues you raised here are very differnt

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Last I checked I'm liberal and support this.

I referred to "liberal anti-gun weenies". Since you don't fit at least the anti-gun part of that phrase, then it didn't apply to you. I recognize that not all liberals are anti-gun. But that's the exception to the rule. Thanks for being exceptional.

Quote

Also, not sure where Obama has looked like a fool on much...

Because he keeps changing his opinions to fit current information. His principles seem to depend upon which way the windsock is blowing on any given day.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Judges are apointed however. Judges are not supposed to play as a legislator can. They are not to judge based on thier biases. (I know that bias will always have some impact)

Interesting that Scalia feels that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it" should be interpreted but the 2nd shouldn't. It makes me question on how he will approach the 4th since is is a strong proponent of textualism.

Who interprets rebellion, invasion or public safety? Where is the equivalent language in the 2nd?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,116]

>Where is the equivalent language in the 2nd?

The interpretation of whether it is an individual or collective right.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Because he keeps changing his opinions to fit current information. His principles seem to depend upon which way the windsock is blowing on any given day.

There is video proof of McCain doing that. I would like to see your proof of Obama doing it. Not some stupid viral email, but real solid links to information.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Also, not sure where Obama has looked like a fool on much . . .

Indeed. This decision supports his stated position:

"There's been a long standing argument among constitutional scholars about whether the 2nd Amendment referred simply to militias or whether it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation."

This is exactly what I'm talking about with him changing his opinions daily based upon which way the wind is blowing.

You need to look at his earlier statements, where he did his politician double-talk, by saying that he supported the right to keep and bear arms, but also supports the right of local jurisdictions to ban them.

So in other words, as soon as a politicians want to ban them, then he supports the ban. That means that there is no constitutional right, if they can be overridden willy-nilly by anyone who wants to.

Obama is a fork-tongued devil, trying to please everyone, and only revealing that he's really just the same extremist liberal that he's always been, but doesn't want everyone to know it.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Where is the equivalent language in the 2nd?

The interpretation of whether it is an individual or collective right.

That's been a recent (historically) development that has FINALLY been corrected.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Where is the equivalent language in the 2nd?

The interpretation of whether it is an individual or collective right.

This one has now been answered

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>That's been a recent (historically) development that has FINALLY been corrected.

I agree, and hope for similar corrections/interpretations on the remainder of the rights called out in the Bill of Rights (and the original Constitution.)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>That's been a recent (historically) development that has FINALLY been corrected.

I agree, and hope for similar corrections/interpretations on the remainder of the rights called out in the Bill of Rights (and the original Constitution.)

A place and topic where we are in full agreement.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>That's been a recent (historically) development that has FINALLY been corrected.

I agree, and hope for similar corrections/interpretations on the remainder of the rights called out in the Bill of Rights (and the original Constitution.)

And another person we have to thank for this is: President George Bush

Clinton's court appointees would've scrapped the 2nd Amendment, like the four dissenters.

Bush's appointees are the ones that turned the tide and respected the Constitution.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Do you feel that the milita or individual question was finally answed in this ruling?

Yes, I do. I think the majority opinion did so quite nicely.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

What's really disgusting is that Feinstein used to have a CCW. So, apparently, it's okay for HER to protect herself, but nobody else.

[lawrocket 3]

Well, Kris, she's important. The peasants may eat cake.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

>That's been a recent (historically) development that has FINALLY been corrected.

I agree, and hope for similar corrections/interpretations on the remainder of the rights called out in the Bill of Rights (and the original Constitution.)

And another person we have to thank for this is: President George Bush

Agreed, and it's pretty rare I praise anything he's done. I'd be a bigger fan of his appointments if they'd been protective of individual rights in their previous opinions, but I'm glad they at least got this one right.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

No so much, I think. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that some regulation of guns by state/local governments (including, potentially, registration) was OK, but that states could not remove the right to bear arms without clear reason (like mental incapacity.)

I wonder whether clear reasons would include "national security" and "protect our children", the most abused reasons for everything around.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

>> Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. "This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future." <<

Wow.
We should write to them and ask why they think this.
Wonder how you do that, effectively?

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

It should be interpeted only within the context the framers used and meant.

I think most, if not all, of the arguments heard by SCOTUS revolve around this issue. The language of our society has evolved over hundreds of years. Not only use, but also intent in some cases.

The real question being answered by these decisions, in simple terms IMO is: more govt in your lives, or less govt? This pendulum continues to swing, and hopefully will never stop. Also, let's hope it doesn't topple over.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Because he keeps changing his opinions to fit current information. His principles seem to depend upon which way the windsock is blowing on any given day.

I see the exact same thing. It's self evident (...somehow, that's becoming a phrase I'm using often these days).

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Bush's appointees are the ones that turned the tide and respected the Constitution.

Interesting point. Maybe Bush is trying to leave a positive legacy for those of us who support the SCOTUS decision (...actually, I'm feeling pretty good because I think this was the right thing to do for our country). The timing is either coincidental or impressive. If it actually turns out to be the "impressive" option, that would be scary. Not that I'm complaining on this one.

We are all engines of karma

[1969912 0]

Quote

The predictable Brady Campaign anti-gun response:

Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke
On Supreme Court Second Amendment Ruling
For Immediate Release:
06-26-2008
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:


“Blah, blah, blah....... Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone."
----------

Dream on, Mr. Hemke.......

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

• Quote

[rushmc 23]

Quote

What's really disgusting is that Feinstein used to have a CCW. So, apparently, it's okay for HER to protect herself, but nobody else.

Very good point

Did she let it drop after she got called on her crap?

I thought she still had the CCW.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln