Discussion in 'Legal' started by Bartholomew Roberts, Jun 26, 2008.
Lapierre v Helmke right now on Hardball!!!!
Wow, so many thoughts but overall a good day. I am sad that it took the Supreme Court case to confirm my god given rights but I am happy someone finally cleared it up.
My second thought is that all the anti's are currently happy with the "reasonable restriction" aspects. I think if they take the time to read is a little deeper they are not going to be so happy. Scalia wrote and beautiful decision, clearly giving thought to future litigation. You can no longer "ban" a whole class of weapons. Even so called "assault weapons" would be considered a class of weapons in common use as they by the anti's definition are civilian versions of military weapons.
The big city's and the Brady Bunch are going to be spending so much time on defense to legal challenges that they will break themselves. This decision if it has done nothing else has turned the tide from defense to offense. After all how dare anyone try to restrict my clearly defined constitutional right to keep and bear arms. When was the last time any of us could say that.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Well, Justice Stevens would have us believe that over 200 years ago the Framers were not concerned about freedom, but rather about providing tools to elected officials.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Another fuzzy-headed view. Breyer apparently believes in a right to defend oneself where none is needed, but in the very place where it's needed most, inside a person's home in a crime-ridden urban area, Justice Breyer can find no such right. So he must believe that there exist different classes of constitutional protection - based in this instance upon where one lives. Perhaps Justice Breyer should re-read Oliver L. Brown et.al. v. the Board of Education of Topeka (KS) et.al. But since he doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment, it's not surprising that he's also willing to disregard the 14th - which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law and is the foundation of the U.S. civil rights movement.
These guys are shining examples of social legislators on the bench, rather than strict constitutionalists, ie. "I don't care what the law says, this is what I think it should say"
This decision is a reprieve, not a "full pardon."
We're one vote away from losing our RKBA, and possibly initiating CW2.
And that's the only reason I'll probably hold my nose, close my eyes and vote for Juan McShamnesty.
The blind hope that he'll not nominate another Ruth Beider Meinhoff.
I am not happy with the outcome. What a democracy-overthrowing-preparation pile of garbage. When the 2nd was written every man carried a gun holstered openly. These judges know very well that the 2nd is there to guarantee that the government doesn't become a tyrant. So why say that militia type of guns isn't covered in the right to bear arms? This stinks of leftwing politics long way. I'm angry. Time to write the judges a letter, if anything to make myself feel good. ****ing bastards! ****!
I'm just a simple caveman...the concept of fire frightens and confuses me...
But it seems obvious to me that if a ban on all handguns is unconstitutional, shouldn't an AWB be as well? After all, they're both blanket bans on an entire class of arms.
20th century: 100,000,000 dead at the hands of their own government.
Yeah, the people should be armed to potentially go to war with their own government.
We won a big one today! The ruling was narrow, but that's all that could be realistically expected. The Supreme Court rules on the case before it, and the good guys won. It's not reasonable to expect the ruling to invalidate all other gun laws. Those are left for future cases to decide, but now we have a more solid basis to work from.
I'm enjoying watching the libs and anti's trying to spin this thing!
The fact that the court came within ONE VOTE of gutting a major amendment to the Bill of Rights shows well though, that we have to be very careful with who we elect to appoint future justices!
5-4 with 4 that can't read
We have to remember that it was this close to going the wrong way and that we have 4 coconuts and a want to be that will be hearing cases on how far the government can limit our rights in the near future and could rule for all kinds of "common sense" regulations.
I'm with Travis. These judges are trying to reconciliate the beliefs of two diametrically opposed sides. And, looking at the candidate's responses, I'm thinking, Wow, McCain is trying to buy my vote, and Obama is trying to have me believe he wouldn't ban everything I have, and attempt to make me a felon.
Experts: Court ruling won't affect New York gun laws
just read this in the times and had to bump in and say
When politicians and police chiefs start talking about "common sense" gun laws, I want to vomit.
"I'm with Travis. These judges are trying to reconciliate the beliefs of two diametrically opposed sides. And, looking at the candidate's responses, I'm thinking, Wow, McCain is trying to buy my vote, and Obama is trying to have me believe he wouldn't ban everything I have, and attempt to make me a felon"
Obama never says we have the right to keep arms, just bear them.
Just a thought.
Although I am joyous today, tomorrow I will be bitter again, cling to my 642 in my pocket, and read the Book of John, or some thing in the Bible.
Guess I'm stuck in being a TWP....
That is the sad truth.
I would like to see some lawsuits against the city now for violating these people's rights all these years.
What is the happy truth? That we won 5-4 today? Seriously what is with these guys who can't be happy for one friggin day?
Well Big45, we do have a long ways to go in this fight. Seeing the opinions of Ginsberg and the others is very sobering.
I wouldn't break out the champagne just yet. The supreme court took the 'natural right' out of the 2nd amm. and replaced it with an official ruling..
The key words in their decision had to do with 'reasonable restrictions'
I smelled a rat when they accepted this case.
Also...I think they left something out there...
Ha. Scalia was Olbermann's Worst person in the world
While we're all slapping each other on the back and yahooing, Nancy "the commie" Pelosi is already looking for ways around the ruling. You have to remember that to the facist democratik, this is merely another starting place.
Like all those communists that supposedly evaporated when Reagan won the cold war, these guys are like the belly button lint that just won't come out unless it's flushed out.
Take a deep breath, and stay vigilant.
That is excellent. Take no prisoners!
Keep supporting the NRA & your state affiliated association as well!
Well they say that that the gains you make are the most risk right after your victory.
Winston Churchhill also said, "never do your enemy a small injury."
With that said however, Scalia did a good job of not only laying the foundations for the litigations to come, but in the case of a subsequent activist court that would erode the right, he has laid the foundation for farther subsequent court to correct such erosion.
What he has done, is to firmly, clearly and thoroughly laydown the foundation of how "The Court" is to view and think about the Second Amendment in future generations. As long as The Court respects Stare Decisis, it will have to consider and explain its rulings against this foundation.
Be Ever Vigilant
Separate names with a comma.