The Greatest Gun Battle in History Begins This Tuesday

[Arlo]

Should the Supreme Court violate that constitution ....

Once again ... proof you don't really understand anything about the constitution. Carry on. 

[Arlo]

Read it, that is horse poop. 

The 2nd does not hold out for any infringement or "reasonable" government restrictions.

Opinion noted, counselor.

[JBA]

The left, will fight you tooth and nail, on the mysterious abortion rights that "exists "in the constitution. Lets see if they will go into that goodnight on this explicitly enumerated right to bare arms.

Court to rule in favor of gun rights.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VG4TBG2&show_article=1

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/51ca64b6-f51d-11dc-a21b-000077b07658,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F51ca64b6-f51d-11dc-a21b-000077b07658.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereport.com%2F&nclick_check=1

[lazs2]

Wonder what bingie and the 2% of Americans who agree with him think of this?

"A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — a majority of the nine-member court.

Gun rights proponents were encouraged.

"What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and unconstitutional," National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said after leaving the court."

[lazs2]

bingie.. or this.... as it goes right to the "militia" and the "collective rights" (no rights) theory u and a few others hold..

"nside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia."

lazs

[JBA]

Even Breyer sounds like he's on board.

Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials.
Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked

Considering most decisions  are 5-4, this may be a "landslide" at 6-3 if Breyer up holds the constitution.

[lazs2]

this looks like good news for "the people" and something to build on.. it will probly forever shut up the socialist "collective rights" (no rights) people like bingie.

Bingie said it would all hinge on whatever the latest version of the militia was.. that was pretty much thrown out as silly the first hour.

lazs

[Toad]

After reading the transcript, I wouldn't count on Breyer to uphold the 2nd. He was intimating/saying that given the number of homicides it wasn't unreasonable for DC to ban handguns.

Souter, Breyer and Stevens and to a lesser extent Ginsberg were pretty heavily into the reasonable restriction aspect of the case.

My take is that its probably 8-1 in favor of the individual rights aspect and it's going to be very close on the reasonable restriction aspect.

I think we'll see a ruling affirming the individual right but with a statement to the effect that this is subject to reasonable governmental restiction like other rights, even the 1st Amendment (can't yell fire in a crowded theater... can't have a handgun IF)

At a minimum though, I think the individual right issue has finally, at long last been put to rest. Even those that can't understand the plain English of the amendment itself should be able to understand "it is an individual right" when this ruling comes down in June.

I think now the fight moves on to "reasonable restriction" for the next 100 years.

[SIG220]

I think now the fight moves on to "reasonable restriction" for the next 100 years.

Well, if the key reason for having the 2nd Amendment is so that we can still raise a Militia, then it would make perfect "reasonable" sense for every citizen to own an AR-15

 

[Toad]

.

[lazs2]

sig.. it will be a cowardly...er.."narrow" decision but.. it will be something to build on once we get the silly "collective rights" thing out of the way...

You could prove that the ar15 for instance was not an unreasonable danger.. that restiricting it was swatting a knat with a sledgehammer.. or not....  the "no more machine guns" law.. it could be struck down by simply proving that it was unreasonable.. that no REAL danger from properly registered machine guns exists.

CCW.. prove they are a reasonable danger.. can't be done.

I think that it will mean that the cities and states that make up gun laws based on a feeling will have to show hard facts.

lazs

[SIG220]

_____________________________ _________________


The most extremely IRONIC thing about yesterday's oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court were all of the many references made to the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which the US Constitution expanded on.

The  English Bill of Rights states:

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"

Of course, the irony here is how badly the right to own firearms has eroded in the UK during these past 320 years.  And even worse, the right of self-defense.

It was a bit odd that the English Bill of Rights said nothing about arming Catholics.   But I guess that was due to the English Civil War.     


_____________________________ _____________

[Arlo]

The left, will fight you tooth and nail, on the mysterious abortion rights that "exists "in the constitution. Lets see if they will go into that goodnight on this "explicitly enumerated" right to bare arms.

Not really understanding your take on what "the left" does or doesn't do as compared to what the SC was designed to do but still not seeing constitutional "expertise" exhibited in the above sentence. The SC will be reviewing whether law, on any level, can effectively and legally impose civilian gun control, as related to the constitution of the United States - specifically the second amendment within the document. Unless uncontrolled gun proliferation activists can inspire or hire members on the hill that can figure out how to write up and propose an amendment to said constitution that really does explicity enumerate uncontrolled gun proliferation amongst the masses .... then it's left to the SC to provide the call ... as specifically enumerated in the constitution.

And sorry for the cryptic and unskilled use of the English language in pointing that out to everyone. Here's a translation for hyperconservatives:

Not pow'ful unnerstan'in' yer take on whut "th' lef'" does o' don't does as compared t'whut th' SC was designed t'do but still not seein' cornsteetooshunal "expertise" exhibited in th' above sentence. Th' SC will be reviewin' whether law, on enny level, kin efshreckively an' legally impose civilian gun corntrol, as related t'th' consteetooshun of th' United States - specifically th' second amendment wifin th' docoomnt. Unless uncontrolled gun proliferashun ackivists kin inspire o' hire members on th' hill thet kin figger out how t'write up an' propose an amendment t'said cornsteetooshun thet pow'ful does explicity inoomrate uncontrolled gun proliferashun amongst th' masses .... then it's lef' t'th' SC t'provide th' call ... as specifically inoomrated in th' consteetooshun.

 

[Arlo]

Well, if the key reason for having the 2nd Amendment is so that we can still raise a Militia, then it would make perfect "reasonable" sense for every citizen to own an AR-15

 

I went so far as to suggest a full-blown M-16 and some of the most fervent uncontrolled gun proliferation activists had a cow.

[JBA]

Not really understanding your take on what "the left" does or doesn't do as compared to what the SC was designed to do but still not seeing constitutional "expertise" exhibited in the above sentence. The SC will be reviewing whether law, on any level, can effectively and legally impose civilian gun control, as related to the constitution of the United States - specifically the second amendment within the document. Unless uncontrolled gun proliferation activists can inspire or hire members on the hill that can figure out how to write up and propose an amendment to said constitution that really does explicity enumerate uncontrolled gun proliferation amongst the masses .... then it's left to the SC to provide the call ... as specifically enumerated in the constitution.

And sorry for the cryptic and unskilled use of the English language in pointing that out to everyone. Here's a translation for hyperconservatives:

Not pow'ful unnerstan'in' yer take on whut "th' lef'" does o' don't does as compared t'whut th' SC was designed t'do but still not seein' cornsteetooshunal "expertise" exhibited in th' above sentence. Th' SC will be reviewin' whether law, on enny level, kin efshreckively an' legally impose civilian gun corntrol, as related t'th' consteetooshun of th' United States - specifically th' second amendment wifin th' docoomnt. Unless uncontrolled gun proliferashun ackivists kin inspire o' hire members on th' hill thet kin figger out how t'write up an' propose an amendment t'said cornsteetooshun thet pow'ful does explicity inoomrate uncontrolled gun proliferashun amongst th' masses .... then it's lef' t'th' SC t'provide th' call ... as specifically inoomrated in th' consteetooshun.
 

Do you  strive to be a DB or does it come naturally?  The point I was making was that the left some how found a right to a medical procedure in the constitution, but where it explicitly states a right, to bear arms, that they cannot see.