Supreme Court could take guns case

[JBA]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071111/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns_5


SC may take 2nd amendment case.  

I’ve been telling myself  to get my LTC, I planed on it this spring,  so as to be grandfathered when they finale pass laws prohibiting the right to gun ownership. Well I guess I’ll have to speed up my time table and do it this winter.

[FBBone]

...........when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

[lazs2]

I am confident that the current justices will leave politics out of it and read the constitution as it was written and show that the second is an individual right.

the idea of anything being a "collective right" is absurd.. how can a right be collective unless you live in a hive or anthill?

Nope.. no constitutional scholar believes in the whole collective right silliness.

I think that Bush appointments to the supreme court may indeed be his legacy.

I want this looked at before the democrats get a chance to put some activist judges on the court.

The article, like all left wing yahoo ones.. was not entirely accurate... it is indeed the pro rights groups who want the issue heard.. by a large margin.   We realize that the supreme court can, and has been, purely political in the past and ruled against all logic but.... this is different.. I can't imagine this court changing the meaning of the constitution and taking away individual rights.

lazs

[Yeager]

if they rule that the 2nd amendmant is not an individual right then there is no individual right within the entire bill of rights.  It will be the law of the land.

[Tiger]

Honestly, how can anyone look at 1-9 of the BoR and say well, 8 of them are individual rights, but #2 is a collective right?

[0thehero]

Honestly, how can anyone look at 1-9 of the BoR and say well, 8 of them are individual rights, but #2 is a collective right?

Well said.

I'm no NRA-Kool-Aid-drinking zealot, but you don't have to be to hope that someone will say just that in the proceedings.

[john9001]

Originally posted by 0thehero

I'm no NRA-Kool-Aid-drinking zealot,

what the heck does that mean?

[Charon]

The issue will likely come down to how broadly or how narrowly they define the individual right in the decision. Those more legally astute than I expect a fairly narrow decision, but likely one reaffirming it as an individual right. Even DC seems to have backed away from the collective vs individual argument in favor of a "rights or not...THINK OF THE CHILDREN! defense." Fairly laughable. The response from the plaintiffs' attorneys was both brutal and amusing

Won't really change a lot right away, but it will be the basis for a lot of change (potentially) down the road. DC and Chicago, etc. will see how far they can push the boundaries of the decision to allow a high degree of regulation on the individual right.

BTW, be sure to thank The CATO Institute for this one. NRA is only a passenger doing some back seat driving.

Charon

[lasersailor184]

I hope they take it soon.

[lazs2]

I believe that charon is correct.  they can't really just say that it is an individual right and that the governments have no power to restrict it in any way...

That is what it is but... too much at stake.. too much change too soon.  It will be a narrow decision.. much like the miller case in '39 that pretty much said that a sawed off shotgun was not a good militia arm so was not protected.

I want the it out now tho that it is an individual right... lets end this "collective right" silliness forever..   "collective right" means no right.  it is an oxymoron.

Now is the time..   there are three anti rights states that want it heard and 11 pro rights states that want it heard.   I believe that at least 3 of the judges will be doing nothing but framing how they are gonna say it is an individual right.

I believe that the brady bunch will look foolish in front of intelligent judges with their child and mommy frightening tactics.  heard on their merits... the anti rights people got no case.

I think that the judges realize that if "people" means "government" then there is gonna be a whole lot more trouble than a few more people owning and enjoying their 2nd amendment rights...

even the lefties here should be able to see how dangerous that is for all our freedoms.

lazs

[0thehero]

what the heck does that mean?

It means you can still support the concept of individual rights without subscribing to the whole retarded slippery slope angle the NRA takes on every related issue, as if someone is coming to your house to collect your paintball guns as well as your .50 caliber rifles after every school shooting.

I believe that the brady bunch will look foolish in front of intelligent judges with their child and mommy frightening tactics. heard on their merits... the anti rights people got no case.

The numbers certainly haven't worked in their favor, with regard to their dubious assertions about registration benefits.

[lazs2]

othe...  I subscribe to the slippery slope theory...  I liken it more to the boiling frog one tho.   I believe, and they themselves have declared as much..  that the anti rights crowd wants nothing less than the complete removal of all firearms rights.  

That being the case.. you would have to be naive and foolish to compromise with them in any way..  it is like (to further ad metaphor)... it is like a constrictor snake..  every time you let out some air.. they tighten up.

I believe that the NRA is absolutely right in saying... "No more"  no more watering down of our rights.

I believe that our second amendment rights have far too many restrictions on them now...  far far too many...  no other protected right has near the restrictions being placed on it.

lazs

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Tiger
Honestly, how can anyone look at 1-9 of the BoR and say well, 8 of them are individual rights, but #2 is a collective right?

Common sense strikes again.

shamus

[john9001]

when ever the anti-gun people pass a anti-gun law they always say "this is the first step".

they do not want "reasonable gun laws", they want to take away all guns, except the guns the criminals have because criminals don't obey the law, that's why we call them criminals.

[TalonX]

Originally posted by Tiger
Honestly, how can anyone look at 1-9 of the BoR and say well, 8 of them are individual rights, but #2 is a collective right?

Not sure, but there are 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights.