The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on March 18, 2008, 06:30:00 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3028219
Oh my.
How full of wonders, the world.
ThomWV (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-18-08 03:40 PM
Original message
It Was Pleasing To Hear The 2nd Amendment Case Before the Court Today
The arguments were interesting, the questions even more so. I paid particular attention to Kennedy (be I wasn't the only one) and it seemed to me, by the questions he asked, that he was staying on the Constitutional question and not letting himself be sidetracked by extraneous stuff. If I had to judge by the tone of the questioning I'd say that the anti-gun-nuts are going to lose big time on this one and the individual rights camp will prevail.
Well now, doesn't that take all?
How full of wonders, the world, a pro-2nd amendment primitive.
jmg257 (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-18-08 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't think there is any doubt left that it protects an individual right. And that is already law anyway. I think the big question/answer will be what level of scrutiny is allowed for supposed infringements on this right, i.e. what constitutes a "reasonable" restriction in order to satisfy gov't's compelling interest.
Of course putting to bed all the BS myths about "collective rights", "militia context only" etc. will be nice, but they still have a lot of room to sort of...please & dissapoint both sides (except specifically DC - I think their laws will be overturned to an extent). And there is also the question of states vs. feds legislation, which came up as well.
It will be interesting come June!
Mountainman (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-18-08 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. "No one is saying you can't own a gun. No one is saying you can't carry a gun. All we are saying is that you can't carry a gun in Dodge."
MaryCeleste (582 posts) Tue Mar-18-08 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Or Wash DC
Fenty is reported to already screaming about getting a backup plan.
One thing I have gotten out of this is the high level of parallel between Gun Grabbers and Anti Choice bigots. They both use evey chance they get to nibble away at that which they abhor.
If they come done as a state decision, we can kiss Roe goodbye
ThomWV (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-18-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. This will be "Roe" for the Gun people
MaryCeleste (582 posts) Tue Mar-18-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Moreover if they make it a state issues means that Roe will be one too and we all know where that will lead
One hopes.
michreject (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-18-08 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kennedy shocked me
I make it a strong 5 to 4 in favor of gun ownership rights.
ThomWV (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-18-08 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Actually I think it might actually go 6/3 or better.
michreject (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-18-08 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. So do I
I was being pessimistic.
NickB79 (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-18-08 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. How long is this expected to take?
When might we see the final ruling?
ThomWV (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-18-08 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Around June would be about right. This one will be one of the last they get around to.
The easy ones come first.
endarkenment (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-18-08 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
8. The court could not care less about individual rights.
They have demonstrated this fact over and over again. If they discover, miraculously, that such a right exists within the second (which of course it does) it will be for reasons that have nothing to do with individuals or their right to keep and bear arms.
bryant69 (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-18-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. are they being bribed by smith and wesson?
Or what is your theory?
Anybody want to guess how the Impeached One's judges, Breyer and Bader-Ginsberg, are going to vote on this?
-
Supreme Court leaning towards upholding Second Amendment rights?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/18/supreme-court-leaning-towards-upholding-second-amendment-rights/
Man I really hope this goes well. It should. Crime is up in DC since the ban. (shocked! shocked to find out that guns protect people!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM_A4Skusro
-
Supreme Court leaning towards upholding Second Amendment rights?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/18/supreme-court-leaning-towards-upholding-second-amendment-rights/
Man I really hope this goes well. It should. Crime is up in DC since the ban. (shocked! shocked to find out that guns protect people!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM_A4Skusro
Oh, I also hope things go our way on this issue. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/ACrazyConservative/prayer.gif)
-
The Bill of Rights were 10 guaranteed rights to individuals. These were a contingency for Jefferson to even SIGN the damn founding documents.
Now, what kind of numbnuts can sit there, with a straight face, and say that while the other 9 amendments pertained to citizens, the 2nd did not?
This ruling would take me .0000001211111 seconds to make a decision.
-
The Bill of Rights were 10 guaranteed rights to individuals. These were a contingency for Jefferson to even SIGN the damn founding documents.
Now, what kind of numbnuts can sit there, with a straight face, and say that while the other 9 amendments pertained to citizens, the 2nd did not?
This ruling would take me .0000001211111 seconds to make a decision.
Same here. And, who knows how Ginsberg and Breyer would go? They'll be in the minority. That's all that matters. What I would want would be something that not only affirms that it is an individual right, but also makes all gun control--Federal, state, and local--illegal and unconstitutional.
-
The Bill of Rights were 10 guaranteed rights to individuals. These were a contingency for Jefferson to even SIGN the damn founding documents.
Now, what kind of numbnuts can sit there, with a straight face, and say that while the other 9 amendments pertained to citizens, the 2nd did not?
This ruling would take me .0000001211111 seconds to make a decision.
Well, the first eight were, anyway; people are still arguing about what exactly the 9th and 10th do but they don't deal with particular, identifiable individual rights.
-
The Bill of Rights were 10 guaranteed rights to individuals. These were a contingency for Jefferson to even SIGN the damn founding documents.
Now, what kind of numbnuts can sit there, with a straight face, and say that while the other 9 amendments pertained to citizens, the 2nd did not?
This ruling would take me .0000001211111 seconds to make a decision.
Well, the first eight were, anyway; people are still arguing about what exactly the 9th and 10th do but they don't deal with particular, identifiable individual rights.
Since 1865, the 10th Amendment has had no meaning. And especially so since the Sentae becae representatives of the People instead of the State governments.