The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 Years.
This is good news, regardless of how it turns out. The Supreme Court has abused the Second Amendment long enough by ignoring it. Whatever is said and done will be a matter of record, and ultimately it will be the people of this country who will pass judgment on that record.
My feeling is that the Supremes will try to find a way to say that the Second Amendment protects and individual liberty, but that government can basically restrict it in any way it wants. It comes down to the fact that "they" don't (won't?) define "rights" honestly, but instead think they are a subset of privileges.
I actually don't like the way they phrased the question. In particular, "[DC regs]... violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY STATE-REGULATED MILITIA, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes." seems to be limiting language applying specifically to the federal district and non-state controlled territories. I don't think any decision on this will be as broad sweeping as we might like. Why? Most of us live in states and the militia (there is a legal definition, I just remember the particulars) are well-regulated in a sense that there are enacted gun laws. Don't be surprised if the decision is limited to apply to those falling within the narrow confines of the question...
Subster in Upstate Peoples Republik of NY "A government big enough to give you everything is also big enough to take away everything." Gerald Ford
I have long maintained that if they hear a 2A case, and if they rule in favor of an individual rights interpretation, it will leave in placde the doctrine of "compelling state interest" and "reasonable regulations"--essentially the Ashcroft interpretation.
subster--yes, we all expect the decision to be narrowly limited to the matters being argued before the court. No surprise there, and David Hardy actually points out how this rewording is a positive sign.
DWL, I could not disagree more strongly. You're buying into the "state constitutions say we have a right" argument, which is a poor bulwark against the federal monolith. A defeat in Heller will embolden our enemies and give them a powerful propaganda tool to continue their assault, and we will lose the 2nd Amendment as a legal argument. It will mean our last means of recourse has been denied. That ought to be a tripwire for all but those who have no line in the sand.
Embolden them to propose more gun control and thus get voted out of office?
I'm buying into the fact that pissed off gun owners tend to vote gun grabbers out of office. A loss for Heller will lead to that. A win for Heller might lead to placated gun owners---something that concerns me more.
If we control the legislatures (fed and local) no gun control can survive regardless of SCOTUS.
Embolden them to propose more gun control and thus get voted out of office?
Oh, right--like they got voted out of office in CA and NY and IL and every urban & high pop area in the country. That must be why the Ds now control both houses of congress and are soon to get the presidency--unless you 'R at any cost' types are going to push for Rudeman, and that's what I'm predicting will happen.
I'm buying into the fact that pissed off gun owners tend to vote gun grabbers out of office. A loss for Heller will lead to that. A win for Heller might lead to placated gun owners---something that concerns me more. Pissed off gun owners. Make me laugh. Majority are just a bunch of lazy bigmouths who don't do a thing. How much more placated do can the slobs get? Besides, who they going to vote for? Give us the scoop on all those grand choices we have to pick from.
If we control the legislatures (fed and local) no gun control can survive regardless of SCOTUS.
If. That would be funny if it wasn't pitiful.
Blew that one, didn't cha Bunky? Keep thinking you can reason with enemies. With people like you it's either denial or you're actually part of the disinformation effort to divide and paralyze gun owners. Get this Mr. D. W. Lawson, if the SC says it's a collective right that is the end game. If you don't get that, your opinion isn't worth listening to. You go start a new knitting circle for the girls and talk about liberty in whose lifetime? It'll never happen with people listening to the likes of you.
Anon, I don't disagree with the general sentiment of your arguments about political results, but things are starting to drift toward the ad hominem and I don't want it to degenerate into name calling. I tend to disagree with Mr. Lawson about level of radicalism and approach, but have never thought him intentionally sowing dissent, and don't want to let that stand without challenging you to prove it, which you can't, or stop it, which you can.
I'm excited, can't wait for March! The way they phrased the question before the court is encouraging.
ReplyDeleteI wish I believed they would do the right thing here....
ReplyDeleteThe Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on this case.
ReplyDeleteShould I be asking "Why not?" or should I be saying "Thank goodness!" (Remember, he did say he would sign an AWB bill if it reached his desk.)
This is good news, regardless of how it turns out. The Supreme Court has abused the Second Amendment long enough by ignoring it. Whatever is said and done will be a matter of record, and ultimately it will be the people of this country who will pass judgment on that record.
ReplyDeleteMy feeling is that the Supremes will try to find a way to say that the Second Amendment protects and individual liberty, but that government can basically restrict it in any way it wants. It comes down to the fact that "they" don't (won't?) define "rights" honestly, but instead think they are a subset of privileges.
ReplyDeleteI actually don't like the way they phrased the question. In particular, "[DC regs]... violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY STATE-REGULATED MILITIA, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes." seems to be limiting language applying specifically to the federal district and non-state controlled territories. I don't think any decision on this will be as broad sweeping as we might like. Why? Most of us live in states and the militia (there is a legal definition, I just remember the particulars) are well-regulated in a sense that there are enacted gun laws. Don't be surprised if the decision is limited to apply to those falling within the narrow confines of the question...
ReplyDeleteSubster in Upstate Peoples Republik of NY
"A government big enough to give you everything is also big enough to take away everything." Gerald Ford
I don't understand the fear from our side of the issue. This case is at worst a push for us.
ReplyDeleteRealize, at the moment, except for the 5th District, we don't have a state recognized 2nd Amendment as it is. Heller can't make this worse.
Lets leave the PSH to the anti's. They are better at it then we are.
I have long maintained that if they hear a 2A case, and if they rule in favor of an individual rights interpretation, it will leave in placde the doctrine of "compelling state interest" and "reasonable regulations"--essentially the Ashcroft interpretation.
ReplyDeletesubster--yes, we all expect the decision to be narrowly limited to the matters being argued before the court. No surprise there, and David Hardy actually points out how this rewording is a positive sign.
DWL, I could not disagree more strongly. You're buying into the "state constitutions say we have a right" argument, which is a poor bulwark against the federal monolith. A defeat in Heller will embolden our enemies and give them a powerful propaganda tool to continue their assault, and we will lose the 2nd Amendment as a legal argument. It will mean our last means of recourse has been denied. That ought to be a tripwire for all but those who have no line in the sand.
Embolden them to propose more gun control and thus get voted out of office?
ReplyDeleteI'm buying into the fact that pissed off gun owners tend to vote gun grabbers out of office. A loss for Heller will lead to that. A win for Heller might lead to placated gun owners---something that concerns me more.
If we control the legislatures (fed and local) no gun control can survive regardless of SCOTUS.
Embolden them to propose more gun control and thus get voted out of office?
ReplyDeleteOh, right--like they got voted out of office in CA and NY and IL and every urban & high pop area in the country. That must be why the Ds now control both houses of congress and are soon to get the presidency--unless you 'R at any cost' types are going to push for Rudeman, and that's what I'm predicting will happen.
I'm buying into the fact that pissed off gun owners tend to vote gun grabbers out of office. A loss for Heller will lead to that. A win for Heller might lead to placated gun owners---something that concerns me more.
Pissed off gun owners. Make me laugh. Majority are just a bunch of lazy bigmouths who don't do a thing. How much more placated do can the slobs get? Besides, who they going to vote for? Give us the scoop on all those grand choices we have to pick from.
If we control the legislatures (fed and local) no gun control can survive regardless of SCOTUS.
If. That would be funny if it wasn't pitiful.
Blew that one, didn't cha Bunky? Keep thinking you can reason with enemies. With people like you it's either denial or you're actually part of the disinformation effort to divide and paralyze gun owners. Get this Mr. D. W. Lawson, if the SC says it's a collective right that is the end game. If you don't get that, your opinion isn't worth listening to. You go start a new knitting circle for the girls and talk about liberty in whose lifetime? It'll never happen with people listening to the likes of you.
OK, play nice.
ReplyDeleteAnon, I don't disagree with the general sentiment of your arguments about political results, but things are starting to drift toward the ad hominem and I don't want it to degenerate into name calling. I tend to disagree with Mr. Lawson about level of radicalism and approach, but have never thought him intentionally sowing dissent, and don't want to let that stand without challenging you to prove it, which you can't, or stop it, which you can.