UPDATE: OPINION HERE
UPDATE: Door left open for infringements (you knew they would):
f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.UPDATE: Chicago next?
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.UPDATE: Licensing and registration not deemed infringements (technically, "not addressed"):
Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
UPDATE: Personal comments:
This is pretty much the outcome most of us expected--an individual rights ruling that leaves the door open for gun control--although at what level remains to be seen. I'm no lawyer and will be interested in seeing what people in the know have to say, but my untutored read on this says the scrutiny question has been dodged.
The other thing that immediately sticks out for me is this business of not addressing licensing and registration--theoretically, that leaves such laws open to future challenge--but here's the thing--there's nothing that says a future court needs to hear such a challenge, and I would expect them to not touch this with a 10-foot pole.
There's one other thing I've been meaning to say, but held off pending the decision: If this had been left up to our "leaders" at the NRA, specifically Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, we would not have this ruling.
This case was not initiatedby NRA, and in fact the Association and some well-know names in 2A legal circles attempted to derail it. NRA did not join until after it was clear things were going forward.
We would have been facing the strong potential for an Obama presidency and democrat congress with no ruling, and the almost certain liklihood that new Supreme Court appointments would significantly alter the composition of the court's narrow 5-4 pro-individual rights contingent.
Fairfax apologists can go ahead and accuse me of "attacking" NRA, but it's the truth and they know it. And it's a hell of a thing for any serious gun rights activist to come to grips with.
UPDATE:
Brady Campaign
Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case.Because if we could admit we were wrong, we wouldn't be fanatics.
Violence Policy Center:
...Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has done his part to make sure that, at least in the U.S., the future for his gun industry friends and their lobbying pals is a little bit brighter.Hell hath no fury...
UPDATE: Guess who agrees with me about Chicago?
UPDATE: Mr. Hardy skims some key points--as always, good insights.
UPDATE: Fenty Foolishness [This update link via Zachary G] :
*First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.We knew that, but it's important to hear it from him just so we can see that he's intent on infringing as much as possible. I'd also look at the DC administration to drag their feet to the brink of stonewalling. SCOTUS will be out until October and I'd look at Fenty & Co. to take full advantage of that.
*Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
*Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home...
But here's the part that demonstrates what absurd theater this is more than anything I could say:
In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies.I call on Mayor Fenty to physically demonstrate what that would look like. Any bets on whether any of the "Authorized Journalists" with access to him will press him in a public forum on just how the hell someone would be able to protect themself that way?
UPDATE: This is troubling, pointed out by Uncivil Defense from the footnote on pg. 48 (see "Opinion" link, above):
Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.
UPDATE: Yep--expect this to be one of the anti's major new rallying points:
City officials expressed confidence the city would prevail in any court challenge, asserting, among other things, that the 2nd Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government and does not apply to state and local governments.Before, it was there's no individual right. Now it's there is, but it doesn't apply to what we can do.
If that's upheld in a liberal appeals venue, SCOTUS would need to agree to hear another 2A case to get it resolved.
The opinion is here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
No scrutiny?
ReplyDeleteYEAH!!!
ReplyDelete:-)
It appears that Justice Scalia may have written a decision that was not vague enough to be palatable to the liberal justices.
Can't wait to read the opinion.
Read the ruling, it leaves a lot to be said on laws that can still be placed on the Second Amendment. Such as you need a special license to own a firearm. No matter if the license process is a real bear and keeps people from being able to gain such a license.
ReplyDeleteThe ruling didn't touch anything but DC's law and can not flow over into other areas to do real justice to firearm ownership. Meaning yes we can have government make new laws that attack the Second Amendment.
The one thing that shows a real problem with the Court is, 4 justices do not how how to read. What is so hard to read, about the last four words of the Second Amendment. Clearly these justices are not following the Constitution and I'm looking forward to reading their words to support a direct attack on the Constitution.
Yes we did win this one, but what does it really mean?
From the syllabus of the ruling:
ReplyDelete"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
:-)
:-)
:-)
Bring on incorporation BABY!
Yeesh, this thing is wide open:
ReplyDelete2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun
looks like licensing and registration is ok...
ReplyDeletePretty much what we expected.
ReplyDeleteI like that he said "commercial sale of arms", which might help us fight McCain's proposed limits on (and registration of) private sales.
I don't like some of the limitations he mentioned, and am particularly concerned with what looks like circular logic in upholding Miller. Due to the NFA, machine guns are not in common use _today_. Any attempt to overturn NFA will be based on _today_, not on the status quo before the NFA. They've illegally and unconstitutionally dried up the market for machine guns, so they aren't in common use today, so it's now legal/constitutional to make/buy/sell/keep/bear a machine gun? Are they now unusual or dangerous weapons? I like to think (a la Heinlein) that "there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men.
Still, it coulda been worse
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
ReplyDeleteI read two things in that. First, registration laws are still OK (even though they aren't). Second, may-issue concealed carry laws are now in serious jeopardy.
And for those two states without ANY issue, they ought to be able to force licensing (shall-issue, of course).
ReplyDelete"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
ReplyDeletedetached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right." (Page 55-56)
Back to the "lawful weapons" red herring argument. And Scalia completely leaves open for dispute his reasoning behind the "M-16" ban and the absolute 180 degree turn the last sentence above states.
It's as if he is directly inviting our side to pick the MG prohibition apart in a future decision. Snicker...well done!
Matt,
ReplyDeleteYou raise an interesting question
" the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."
But it does not say if the District may CHARGE for the license and registration...
If Heller affirms an individual right and acknowledges the validity of licensing and registration it has set a precedent for charging a fee to exercise a right....
"But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
ReplyDeleteright."
Modern developments didn't limit the degree of fit, REGULATION of modern weapons did, you twit.
Yes, it could have been worse, but what a crock! The robed dictators prove again that they are incapable of reading plain English and understanding the words of the founders. Basically they say its a right which politicians can infringe any way they like. Registration, license, fees, restriction by model? No problem.
ReplyDeleteactually, about licensing:
ReplyDelete"We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."
the opinion doesn't seem to address registration except to say that "the District must permit him to register his handgun"
I'm sorry, I can't see the "right" because there is a huge "BUT" in my way...
ReplyDelete1894c,
ReplyDeleteYeah, you're right. I'm not saying I like the details, but we are better off than we were before - not by much, but the fight over gun rights has never been all-at-once. It has always been incremental, unfortunately. Charging a fee to exercise a right is despicable, but we do have reason to celebrate today.
still reading...
ReplyDeletebut so far I agree with the other anonymous poster wrt: NFA and in common usage type terms. Miller was about SBSs, SBS were at the time a military arm. Did not stop them from ruling possession was prohibited. As a consequence SBS are now not commonplace and as such not protected under this ruling. So MGs SBRs, SBSs, AOWs are not in common usage either because of various acts of congress 68, 86 89, etc. With each new law what is in common usage diminishes. And because the opinion states that regulation is not an infringement, what is to stop legislatures from dwindling the pool of "acceptable" further?
Well. Now we know. Lot of work to do. This will make Vermont-Alaska carry a tougher sell legislatively, by giving cover to the squishes...but from here we go forward -- and only forward. Both our putative friends and our opponents must be made to understand that.
ReplyDeleteThe court had no need to address the licensing issue, as it was not challenged. The court did declare the second and individual right and other courts have already ruled that rights cannot be subject to license, permits or fees. That makes such laws VERY subject to challenge.
ReplyDelete8)
Jeffersoniantoo
David, hope you are right but when the robed ones say specifically that the right has limits and the district must allow him to register and that should give him relief, where is the light at the end of the tunnel? I don't see any bar to licensing or fees, and they say to register. They seem to say limits on configuration are ok, so the "assault" ban being redone would be fine, or your arms that you can bear could be restricted to a black powder musket.
ReplyDeleteFairfax apologists can go ahead and accuse me of "attacking" NRA, but it's the truth and they know it. And it's a hell of a thing for any serious gun rights activist to come to grips with.
ReplyDeleteI don't care that you challenge the NRA, any authority needs to be checked from tim to time. However, you do agree that, in most cases, and of course they can do much better, that the NRA is a positive force for gun rights activists, do you not?
I am not calling out your critisism, and I agree it is shameful that they tried to derail Heller.
It's not actually that bad of a ruling, better than I expected by far...
ReplyDeleteIt leaves the door wide open for more challenges and the court even amdits that there will be future challenges.
as for the NRA not pushing the case, I can actually understand it... they knew from the beginning that if they lost, they lost big... so they wanted to be sure that the could stand a chance before laying all the chips down...
. . . but my untutored read on this says the scrutiny question has been dodged.
ReplyDeleteThat looks to be the case: based on this (from page 65), I take it that the level of scrutiny to apply was left unaddressed.
JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential
point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level
of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions.
"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."
ReplyDeleteU.S. v. Fincher, Round Two?
I'm prepared to argue that guerrilla forces operating with small arms are highly effective against "modern armies,” tanks, bombers, fast-movers, Spectre, Hind-D and Apache.
I've got lots of evidence — like “skeet shooting” in Iraq.
When lots of Johnnies and Janes come home in body bags because some well-trained militiamen put them there using proper guerrilla strategy and tactics, it gets politically and socially untenable to continue a war.
Not only that, it gets very expensive to waste a $30,000.00 guided missile on two or three militiamen, and do it several times a day.
WE MUST PROVE THE POINT.
The citizen militia is the counterweight to government over-reach and power. That is what the Founders intended.
They seem to say limits on configuration are ok, so the "assault" ban being redone would be fine, or your arms that you can bear could be restricted to a black powder musket.
ReplyDeleteSo our task with respect to that becomes making crystal clear that any such thing would be unacceptable to us, if not to the courts, and that enforcing them would be no light matter. Not One Step Back from where we stand right now,
as for the NRA not pushing the case, I can actually understand it... they knew from the beginning that if they lost, they lost big... so they wanted to be sure that the could stand a chance before laying all the chips down...
Yeah, but that's the opposite of leadership, ain't it? And I say that as an NRA member myself.
I do not intend that either of these statements be taken as directed toward the original posters, but rather as simply illustrative. This is a victory if we make it one, and advance from here.
Bodacious, I'm sorry that I don't have a simple "Yes" or "no" answer for you--some things the organization does exceedingly well, others are downright destructive, such as calls to enforce gun laws, giving undeserved ratings to candidates, and the like.
ReplyDeleteI explained my general position here.
And as indicated, I expect leaders to lead. Boldly.
We won nothing more than a slow walk to the gallows. Check the response of the D.C. mayor. The ban in the House is on it's way, with licensing and registration either attached, or right behind it. Expect another ban within a year of the first one. Molon Labe, hell, they already got their greasy paws on them. Anything less than the truth is still just a lie. We've been tossed a crumb and told to eat up. There's enough wiggle room there for all the socialism they'll need. All this is,is,being told nicely to fuck off.
ReplyDeleteI love this little dig at one of the anti’s favorite arguments…
ReplyDelete"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
We cannot take a negative view. They (the socialists and statists) began their "long march" over 100 years ago, and it has only gotten them this far.
ReplyDeleteThis is a war, and we must take the strategic view, or we will lose the war altogether.
I, for one, am prepared for a second go around for Wayne and the militia. Most of Wayne's case was gutted due to a "collective rights" interpretation by Judge Jimm Larry Hendren and the Appellate Courts. This ruling puts that case on somewhat different ground.
Patience is a virtue, even when taking back something that is already yours.
Agreed, Paul. I also think Silveira is ripe for a challenge as that is why the 9th Circuit turned it down.
ReplyDeleteThis actually has potentially huge repercussions for CA, as their state supreme court holds the same view, as does their AG.
Ok, who knows how this process unfolds for D.C.? How much will the license cost? How long will the waiting period be, if any? Magazine capacity limits?
ReplyDeletescalia's decision is decidedly innocuous, even if you are paul helmke.
ReplyDeleteso why are there four dissenting justices?
"license cost? How long will the waiting period be, if any? Magazine capacity limits?"
ReplyDeleteThose have been determined by various courts to *not be BANS* and so "do not interfere with a constitutional right." As long as you can go "Bang!" what's not to like, they reason.
Expect them to max them out.
Criminals will still go unaffected.
We said if the decision were seriously anti-2A it would just motivate us to fight harder.
The other side promises the same, now that it has weakened their fallacious claims a little, with all the lies and deception they can muster.
I'm no doomsayer, just a long-time observer. We've been tossed a bone with a little meat on it.
In response to Avg.Joe, I must say he didn't count properly. There are nine justices who cannot read.
ReplyDeletethis is a very minor victory for us. It could be a Pyrrhic victory if we are not alert and active. This is no time to rest. The other side is already looking at the weasel words as license to infringe if only they do it more creatively than they have had to do in the past.
ReplyDeleteWhich will make it even more difficult to correct if they find solace in the weasel words of this decision. Stare Decisis and Precedent, anyone?
LOL! 4 who clearly can not read. The other 5 seem to be protecting the government but trying to keep millions of citizens in check at the same time.
ReplyDeleteThis is only one day, we will see what becomes of this day in the big picture in due time.
David did hit the nail on the head with the NRA. Nevertheless, watch the NRA go about spewing propaganda on how important they were in today's ruling. If they do which is par for the course for them. It shows that they are no better than the others whom we can not trust.
Re David:
ReplyDeleteAnd as indicated, I expect leaders to lead. Boldly.
Well said and I agree, thanks for the response.
SA,
ReplyDeleteI will absolutely agree this is no time to rest. As for a "minor victory," I will remind you that for most of Hannibal's campaign in the Italian peninsula, Hannibal won major victories. However, he lost the war. Wars do not necessarily turn on what we, at the time, think of as major or minor victories.
I see this as a turning point. However, this war would not end even if the Supreme Court had given us everything we wanted. Every generation must fight this war. What we do now, will determine the ground upon which our children and grandchildren fight. Personally, I would like to see if we could give our children new ground to fight on, not our ground that we are trying to recover. Moreover, I would like to do it without a bloody war.
Before today’s decision, it looked very much like that would be the case (and it still may be). However, I see some light as one of Justice Stevens biggest whines is the majority ignored and overthrew precedent. Stare Decisis has been dealt a blow, but much work is to be done. Stare Decisis will never die, just like we cannot undo nuclear weapons. All we can do is drive to put Stare Decisis in its proper place and put the government back into its constitutional cage.
Defender,
Today’s decision was what Heller and the Cato Institute wanted. They appealed on narrow grounds, and the Court gave Heller his narrow decision. However, it overturns all the lower court rulings that were based upon the collectivist view and interpretation of the Constitution. This is a strategic victory, and one that we can make much of — if we’re willing.
I'm not a lawyer but if the city of DC tries to play games with this. The USSC up held the lower federal courts ruling. So if DC doesn't follow marching orders all anyone would have to do is go back to the lower federal court and they have the USSC's ruling behind them to order DC to obey. Of course I'm still waiting to see when folks get their guns back in New Orleans.
ReplyDeleteHow come government kind can do whatever they feel like doing and no court seems to have any power on them. Just us little people. If we don't pay a parking ticket its jail time.
Just suppose folks in D.C. wind up being able to arm themselves, after the dust settles.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if someone is planning (ahead) to check the crimes statistics after a year or 2 to see how far they have fallen by then.
"Get 'em skeered and keep the skeer on 'em"
ReplyDelete- Gen. N.B. Forrest to Lieutenant Morton
+1 'Zackly, CA.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Mr. Davis.
ReplyDeleteWe have REgained ground. Now we'll see what they want us to pay for it. But it WAS regained.
if the city of DC tries to play games with this.
ReplyDeleteMayor Fenty and the DC government say handguns MUST be registered (procedure and COST to be determined later).
"Automatic and **semiautomatic** handguns will remain illegal..."
Your question answered. Short wait, eh?
Anyone care to weigh in on how the terms "common use" and "lawful purposes" can and will be twisted, misconstrued, and misused by future hoplophobes and gun grabbers?
ReplyDeleteAll the SCOTUS did was affirm what we already knew, but did so with language ambiguous enough to cause future problems.
They can infringe on the "right" without ever recognizing it as an infringement; all that is needed is some hoplophobe to make up a sweeping definition of "dangerous and unusual weapons."
It will allow for another AWB without ever calling it an AWB; it will simply be considered adhering to the rule of law as laid down by the SCOTUS. Pretty scary stuff.
"the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." ?!?
ReplyDeleteIf it did, it would say "... shall not be infringed by the federal government..." The Founders were somewhat literate. And the People were and are somewhat intelligent.
That's like the First Amendment's "CONGRESS shall make no law..." They didn't mean state lawmakers, town councils and so on COULD. We sill hav a dry county or two here despite the repeal of Prohibition, but it doesn't mean you can't buy and possess alcohol ANYWHERE.
Supreme Court unanimous in re-writing Constitution of the United States: The right of the People to keep and bare arms SHALL (not) be infringed.
ReplyDeleteY’all ever hear of the Tenth Amendment?
ReplyDelete“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Like it or no, the Second Amendment, without the Fourteenth Amendment, DOES apply to the States, as WE reserved the right to keep and bear arms to ourselves, and removed that out of both Federal and State reach.
Now, who do we hit first with this club?
Interesting set of comments. I am reminded once again of how diversified this group is, even in near-unanimity of principle.
ReplyDeleteSo in the end we seem to have got a small concession, but with plenty of options for the gamesmen to continue the shouting match. And so it goes evermore, I guess.
I admire the ability that some folks in this discussion have, to see this as an opportunity, if imperfect, that can be used to move forward from where we are. The libertarian crank in me aligns pretty squarely with SA's sentiment of, "look, none of 'em got it right, or even close", and if I could add anything of value to what has already been said, it would be that the discussion of the games ahead is the more frustrating because this is not a damn game. (Ultimately, that is what most people who "don't get it" cannot seem to comprehend: that to some people, life and liberty are inseparable from one another.) But it's always easier to shoot arrows at the problem, remotely, than it is to take the next piece of ground under fire. It will do me well to remember that, and seriously reassess what I may be able to do now. If it pisses me off that the message I heard today is, "okay, we'll grant you [Only One-speak if ever I saw it] the individual-rights question but such is still limited", I am happy to help mine any unintended teeth in the opinion, and somehow contribute to a "try again, punks--this ain't it by a damn sight" return of serve.
One thing I haven't seen commented upon yet, and sure to be one of the biggest and most used vehicles to continue denial of rights is the Courts opinion that the "core" of the matter is personal self defense in the home.
ReplyDeleteThat is not true, never has been and is not now true. But by inserting that seemingly innocuous phrase the groundwork has been laid for restricting the bearing of arms anywhere outside the home. It has also laid the groundwork for restrictions against any arm deemed not suitable for inside the home self defense.
How much damn more room do any of us think they need to deny rights so long as that denial isn't "absolute".
Believe me, this was an instruction manual for gungrabbers on how to avoid the constitution and receive the court's approval, while the court avoids armed rebellion by not stating the real purpose of the decision.
May not have happened if they had declared completely the other way, but they didn't want to risk it. In the meantime, they have managed to provide a template for more effective restrictions than the ones we have been fighting for decades.
While I share the feeling of relief this decision it is, IMO, just the beginning. Remember how long it took to get from Brown v Board of Education to the end of State mandated segregation.
ReplyDelete--
Stephen
Lets go to the heart of this ruling, OK?
ReplyDeleteFact, the Second Amendment is about you, me, and joe blow stand next to us. No longer does it have the ability to be said to mean the National Guard.
We now have it plain and simple, the People have the full blown right to own firearms. And not only own firearms but any firearm that is common.
Huge!
By the way did I say, "huge"?
60 years of BS has now been destroyed for the haters of the United States Constitution. End of story.
The other huge plus on this ruling is it kicks the UN and the BS they have been trying to pull off is DOA. So the only way the UN can subject the United States to their international laws is to overrule the United States Constitution. That isn't going to happen in this country.
Frankly, we have so much more ground to move forward with its, huge.
Everyone, keep an eye on the NRA, because they are going to screw this ruling over in due time giving the chance, no questions about it. If history of the NRA proves themselves.
Wayne LaPuke and Coxsucker need to go.
Avgjoe at 2:09 am (hey, ya night owl) makes a good point with respect to the UN. It takes the wiggle room away from the IANSA enablers among our tranzi traitor set. If they play along now, it is an unambiguous abrogation of the Constitution...
ReplyDelete...enabling an unambiguous appeal to and activation of the Declaration of Independence.
AND IT'S ON:
ReplyDeleteIn this corner "New Professionalism" Antonin and
his sidekicks. Over there, "Sometimes UnWise"
John Paul and his contingent.
Even the WaPo mavens are impressed:
"Scalia and Stevens make a Mean To Duel List"
Look at that crowd! The costumes and pre-event pantomimes are super!
Look at those "Just Don't Kick Us Too Much" RKBA legions! These folks turnout is *pretty good*
and they've rustled up a lot of *really* authentic costuming.
The "Hey Hey You Do What We Say" Liberaloids production is showing its age, but they do have some
*real troupers* as their post-match exclamations of horror rarely betrayed that that
they still have the upper hand.
Here's the scorecard:
The "Good Guys" are
the "Please Please Give Us Our RKBA" crowd.
The "Bad Guys" are the
"Gonna Get 'Em All" Liberaloids.
That iconography is an absolute stroke of genius! It's sucking them in like few scripts do.
And this is a BIG ONE folks!
It's the "Give 'em H*ll*r" brouhaha!
The once in a lifetime "Troglodyte Ballet"
Not only the contestants, but most of the spectators have been deprived of essential nutrients
not just for a day but for even maybe even a CENTURY. (see the "Monsters Ball" of Pro
Wrestling)
That's going to make for some *interesting moves*!
Will they or they?
Who's got the mostest?
Who's fastest?
Who's toughest?
It's IN! Oh WOW!
After a fairly well-choreographed "Scrutiny Scuffle" and dramatic Last Minute Delays we have been given *The Decision* and it holds out hope for later if lesser matches for years.
Hear that sigh of millions?
It's the Good Guys, relieved but realizing it was *so close* I mean it was even five to four (5 to 4)
The Good Guys nearly *LOST IT ALL*!
Enough. Get the picture?
Conned again?
BANITPSC?
Acronyms are neater and politer.
Look at this:
The "Incredible One Hand Maneuver" of the Towering A:
Scalia noted that the
hand gun is Americans
preferred weapon of
self defence in part
because it "can be pointed
at a burglar with one hand
while the other hand dials the
police.
Ever try to do that? Nope, I didn't think so.
The "Single Handed Wonder " is getting favorable comments from otherwise knowledgeable ppl in Real
Life(tm) to my astonishment.
Even if you have 911 on speed
dial it would be a slow burglar
who didn't get the gun from you I think.
And suppose you don't try and call?
The "One Hand" test; so much for
self-defence.
Oh, it looks they can regulate all they want(see Radley Balko at The Agitator )
Some individual right.
all the best, cycjec
A comment I left at Uncle's seems appropriate here also:
ReplyDeleteEducation, reasonable discourse, appeal to humanitarian principles, morality, respect and call to honor are all wasted on that ilk. The only thing that really settles the question when dealing with that kind is force.
Nobody is really ready to engage in it at this point. Us, because we are basically peacable and reasonable and have trouble wrapping our heads around the truth that some are immune to reason, logic, and morality. Them, because they are sociopaths who want what they want and don’t care what atrocities they must perform to get it.
We don’t really believe we will win this battle on the moral and principled plane through debate, but we hope so hard that it is so that we suspend disbelief.
They don’t commit the atrocities necessary because they are not guaranteed to win the physical confrontation that those atrocities might foment. Though Waco and other events have made them much more hopeful of consequentless atrocity commission. They just aren’t as confident as they would like to be before embarking openly and enthusiastically on that course. That is the only brake on their desire to do so. That brake will eventually fail.
Force will be used to decide the issue. It is unavoidable because of the nature of our oppositiion. The only real question is will their force be met with force. But force will decide the issue.
Due to my age and state of health, I may not be around to participate, but when it happens, remember where you heard it. You will find I waa not as crazy as you had hoped.