Everyone itching for a Supreme Court showdown...

[stevelyn]

The SCOTUS is nothing more than a bunch of black-robed jacka$$e$ whose purpose is to rubber-stamp the govt agenda and call it good.

We really have no hope beyond the state level of getting our rights back without a shooting war.

My guess is that in the next few years, you'll see the the gap widen between "freedom" and "anti-freedom" oriented states.

 

[Molon Labe]

The Supreme Joke of the United States does not define my rights, nor does it have authority over them. So I don't give a rat's @ss what the Supreme Joke thinks of my right to keep and bear arms.

 

[ilbob]

The thing is that courts are not keen to make a sweeping ruling that would change the laws of probably every state, thousands of local governments, and the federal government all at once. There would be no way to make such a ruling that would coherently express the 2A without throwing virtually all gun laws out the window.

We might think that a good idea, but the resulting chaos in the court system and legislatures would take 50 years or more to resolve.

Courts do not want to create disorder, they want to make things more orderly. That is a lot of what precedent is about. Any ruling on the 2A that stays pure to the original intent and the actual words is going to be very messy.

 

[Standing Wolf]

First and last, government looks after the interests of government.

 

[roscoe]

The only way to win more gun rights, or any rights, is to push in Congress.

 

[hugh damright]

If the SCOTUS was to rule that the only federal protection of our individual RKBA is as it relates to militia, some people would consider that to be complete defeat, but I consider it to be the US Constitution. I don't have this itch to reconstruct the Second Amendment to abolish gun laws. However, what does kind of bother me, is that I don't believe the US has ever, in all this time, been able to name one single weapon that is a "militia weapon" and thereby federally protected. Suppose for instance that we pass a federal law defining the official militia weapon in these United States to be the M1, and that no State in the Union can deny the right of its general population to keep an M1 and ammo in their home. Is that complete defeat, or is that limited federal goverment?

 

[Kentak]

I absolutely would not want a 2A showdown in SCOTUS. Even though there is a good chance for a positive outcome, it's by no means a sure thing. And once it goes against us, might as well kiss it good-bye forever.

Right now, most citizens think 2A means RKBA. Even a great many politicians talk the talk. Best thing to do is to keep doing what we've always done. Politics. Ballot box. Punish the gun grabbers by kicking them out of office. Fight restrictive gun legislation wherever it's proposed, and keep pushing to roll back those that already exists. Join the NRA and contribute to the political war chest.

K

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Spartacus 2002 is correct.

I recently read a book by Andrew Nopolitano. Mr. Napolitano was making many of the state's rights, and limited government arguments that even the right has abandoned. I thought to myself, "Wow, this guy sounds down right traditional conservative."

I realized even though he is qualified in as much as he has the experience, and he is generally more to Bush's side than well anyone on the 9th Court, He would never be appointed.

The government is a leviathon. It doesn't answer to logic, or common sense, or any good rules. And it will not put a person that would reduce government in such an important place. When a business makes mistakes, it must correct those mistakes, or close it's doors (unless of course, like most Defense Contractors, it uses the government), when the government fails, it simply says, "Not enough money, power, etc. was given to us," and then it hikes taxes, and everyone employed within the failing agency gets a pay raise.

You want to know how I would have started believing Republicans want a smaller government? The moment Bush got in office, his allies in the Congress introduced a bill to end the estate tax, eliminate Social Security, and replace it with a free market system, and began to dismantle federal level programs, and move them back to the states. Instead, we got the government giving corporations welfare, forcing us to buy their stuff, a war that had nothing to do with fighting terror, and more federal spending than any Dem.

Meanwhile, the two Justices we get believe "whatever the Executive wants, he gets" in office. These Justices are not Conservative, they are fascists. You want to trust the 2A to them. They obviously are on sale to most issues, do youo think you can bid higher than George Soros, and the UN?

 

[xd9fan]

First and last, government looks after the interests of government.

big time and why americans continue to ask this court for interpretation of thier Rights is UNAMERICAN!!

 

[spartacus2002]

Remember when former Pres. Clinton said "you cannot love your country and hate your government at the same time"? He didn't say that because he's a globalist, a pig, or other fill-in-the-blank-pejorative.

He said that because he is a politician and in modern America, they simply believe that government is the source of all that is good and orderly. They simply cannot comprehend that people can self-regulate.

If you want to see a human mind experience the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death, have a discussion with a big-gummint type about welfare, tell them you don't oppose a social safety net, then ask them why they assume government has to be the one providing it -- why can't society provide it through the efforts of individuals and private organizations. The dropped jaw, blank stare, and general "DOES NOT COMPUTE" look about them is priceless.

The bureaucratic/political mind loves order and control, regardless of the result, and it fears independent judgment and initiative.

If you leave people alone, they will self-regulate if they see the need. Next time you go to the grocery store, notice how many times people pushing their carts toward each other in an aisle will move out of each other's way.


One last note: Don't depend on Congress for your liberties either. I once went on a field trip to a Senator's office in law school, and my group met with his legislative chief. When we naively asked how he made sure the laws he drafted were Constitutional, he pulled out a VERY old copy of Emanuals on ConLaw and said "I might look in here every now and then, but I just rely on the Supreme COurt to tell us if it's Constitutional or not."

There you have it: Ignorance plus power equals Leviathan.

 

[cuchulainn]

<sigh>

There have been plenty of cases where SCOTUS made decisions that were not in the interest of order or protecting government. Indeed, any case in which it struck down a law or group of laws is an example of SCOTUS going against order and government.

You think the justices were thinking about "order" in Brown v. Board of Ed or Roe v. Wade? What about Printz v. United States, in which portions of the Brady Bill were ruled unconstitutional (on non 2nd grounds)?

Those are just three examples out of hundreds.

We have no idea how a straight-up 2nd Amt. case would go, but that fact also discredits the idea that SCOTUS typically protects "order" and government. We don't know because many times SCOTUS rules against order and government.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown between SCOTUS rulings that did or did not support "order and government."

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I would have to disagree with a lot of the commentary here which is getting to be dull with its repetition of goofy conspiracy theories and doomsday prognosticism. Frankly, it is a good thing a lot of you weren't around for earlier fights or you'd have just flat given up.

 

[tcgeol]

I'm not too crazy about seeing a case come up right now because the safety margin just isn't there. If we can get one of Stevens, Ginsberg, or Souter to resign and put in JRB, Jones, Pryor, or someone like that, our chances would be much better.

 

[hugh damright]

I keep getting the impression that we are accepting a false view of the SCOTUS, where their rulings don't apply to just a case but rather apply to all cases as if their rulings are law, and legislation from the bench is the assumed method of getting what we want.

Maybe we should come up with a plan that has more respect for our form of government - respect for the separation of legislative and judicial powers, and for the separation of state and federal powers. And maybe that way is for Congress to pass a law which defines the weapons which qualify as militia weapons and are therefore federally protected.

Suppose that the Dems come back into power and try to bring back the assault weapons ban ... would the Republicans dare introduce a counter bill which defines a list of weapons that are militia weapons and federally protected? A "Militia Weapons Protection Act"? I think that is how you have a showdown within our frame of government, not by trying to stack the SCOTUS and legislate from the bench.

 

[Waitone]

Congress has the constitutional authority to remove the right appellate jurisdiction from SCOTUS, a consitutional authority it seldom uses. With respect to the recently ruled Hamdi case, SCOTUS simply ran over congressional authority. Why would anyone think SCOTUS would respect congressional legislation if it can summarily dismiss constitutional provisions? Impeachment is in order.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

With respect to the recently ruled Hamdi case, SCOTUS simply ran over congressional authority.

There are two "detainee" cases. One is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (citizen captured on battlefield) and the other is Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (non-citizen captured on battlefield). Hamdan is the recently decided case. In Hamdan they pointed out that Congress was aware of the Hamdan case (it had been pending for two years at that point and had already been through the circuit court of appeals).

In writing the statute, Congress said that it specifically applied to "pending" cases in two paragraphs; but left the word "pending" out of the paragraph affecting jurisdiction. The government argued that "pending" was implied. The Court did not buy it and decided they had jurisdiction and that Congress could write clearer statutes if they wanted to deny it authority (pages 10-13 of the opinion).

That hardly seems like "running over Congressional authority" to me...

 

[hugh damright]

Why would anyone think SCOTUS would respect congressional legislation

Are you saying that if Congress passes a law which specifically defines certain weapons as militia weapons and declares that no State can deny the right of its general population to keep these weapons in their homes, that we can expect the SCOTUS to declare the law to be unconstitutional?

 

[RealGun]

Are you saying that if Congress passes a law which specifically defines certain weapons as militia weapons and declares that no State can deny the right of its general population to keep these weapons in their homes, that we can expect the SCOTUS to declare the law to be unconstitutional?

It wouldn't be the first time that the meaning of Constitutional provisions were obfuscated, when many bystanders believed the wording to be clear enough. It is evident that rulings and the logic upon which they are based depend upon a desired result. If the court has the notion that they are imperial rulers, then social consequences and other abstractions will be high on their list of priorities. That seems to be the case, depending upon the Justice, especially Stevens. We complain about activism but don't do anything about it except quarrel and agonize over controlling who sits on the Court as a newcomer, thereby seeking a popular result or desired doctrinal and political bias.

Unless the Court is successfully challenged by Congress on Kelo (eminent domain gone awry), this will likely never change.

 

[James T Thomas]

our foundation rock

The U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law" of the land, and not the "supreme court."

To continue to permit this court or any court to "interpret" our laws is to "court" disaster in our nation.

Because the justices have doctorates in law, etc. does not endow them with the authority to alter the laws. They are to oversee the enforcement of our nation's laws; nothing more.

Didn't the Dred Scot decision teach us anything?

What is the supreme authority of our laws then? Since we are now forbidden to mention the naming of Him; as in our schools, public meetings, even the opening prayers of the national congress, I remind the members that ...
"We have been given certain inalienable rights by our 'Creator,' that amoung those are"...

It is He that has blessed us with such freedom, and since we have denied Him, turned away from Him, and persued all else contrived to be in His place; we now have to attempt to secure those things -without Him.

As an old Southern preacher might say, "We are reaping the whirlwind."

(_ _ _ ) bless America!

 

[RealGun]

What is the supreme authority of our laws then? Since we are now forbidden to mention the naming of Him; as in our schools, public meetings, even the opening prayers of the national congress, I remind the members that ...

Of course, none of that is true...quite the contrary, and thus the controversy, when all are to be represented and none favored.

 

[dfaugh]

I still can't find where in the Second Amendment it says that I can't have a particular firearm.

Aye, there's the rub.

Challenging gun laws, ANY gun laws, SOLELY ON SECOND AMENDMENT GROUNDS, whether it be in SCOTUS or elsewhere is dangerous ground. Because, if you want to be literal about it, it only states that the people have the right to own guns. Maybe not any gun you want, but guns. Most of the gun laws enacted in the last 100 years only apply (or applied) to specific guns, types of guns or some other subset of "guns".

So, technically, only an outright ban on ALL types of guns is unconstitutional.

So, for example, SCOTUS could easily uphold any law pertaining to registration or handgun bans, or lots of other nasty things, while still affirming the 2nd.

 

[Cacique500]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Because, if you want to be literal about it, it only states that the people have the right to own guns. Maybe not any gun you want, but guns.

Dfaugh, I disagree. The Second Amendment does not mention the type of guns but it does clearly state that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. By limiting what type of arms you can keep and bear, you're infringing. IANAL but that's how I read it...YMMV.

Anyone who takes the time and reads the Federalist Papers has no doubts regarding the true intention of the Second Amendment - it really should be a slam dunk if it ever got to the Supreme Court. Realistically, on the other hand, we all know it won't be.