Josey you’ve lived in Illinois too long.
The fact that the court decided to hear this case allone is amazing. Unfortunately it could bring on the largest betrayal of the constitution in history. The country seems to be leaning back to the left again and I think all of the so called Conservatives are about to shaft us all. Of course I may be wrong so if I am. My Bad.:rolleyes:
I’m particularly interested in how this may result in the incorporation of the Second Amendment just like all the others (except Fourth), and possible ramifications for the concept of “full faith and credit” between states with regards to a person’s ability to carry a concealed handgun under ANY state’s permit (see: driver licenses).
Kennedy is the key.
Content deleted.
Very true, but we’ve already chosen to license this right…I’ve got the permit in my wallet to prove it. Although it wouldn’t really be a step forward, perse, I wouldn’t complain if incorporation of the 2nd Amendment allowed me to carry in any state under my Colorado CCW permit.
The problem, though, is the fact many, many more court cases will be needed to determine to what extent this ruling will affect the nation as a whole.
Content deleted.
I have been waiting for a case like this to come before the supreme court for a long, long time. This case will make or break the Second Amendment. If it breaks it, prepare for CIVIL WAR.If it dosen’t our rights will remain intact for all our children,I pray to GOD for the later.Our country is facing a gathering storm of enemies and we don’t need to fight amongst ourselvs. Lets all hope for a good outcome.
Content deleted.
If the district of columbia is not a state or U.S. territory then what do they call it! And if they have total home rule that sounds like something out of a George Orwell novel!
Content deleted.
Content deleted.
Civil War occurring over the SCOTUS decision to uphold the D.C. ban is more wishful thinking than having any basis in reality.
Content deleted.
Exactly - when Jefferson suggested that we should have a revolution every generation, he wasn’t implying the use of violence. We had our first revolution in 1776, our second in 1787, and none since. I don’t know that it’s time for another, but it’s safe to say that John Locke and our Founding Fathers are turning in their graves right now…
I thought this was a pretty good analysis of what may come.
Buckeye Firearms Association Legislative Chair Ken Hanson Esq. has offered the following examination of the Supreme Court’s decision to review the D.C. Gun Ban case. Please keep in mind that the announced decision is basically one sentence, and it is hard, verging on folly, to read into the decision much insight.
The Heller Decision - Some Initial Analysis
The following really amounts to nothing more than educated guessing at this point, and simply represents one person’s musings.
The Supreme Court limited the case to the following issue:
Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
This is completely reading tea leaves, but the particular issue that they limited this case to is one sentence packed with four important points:
-
“…violate the Second Amendment Right of individuals…”
-
“…who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia…”
-
“…handguns and other firearms…”
-
“…for private use in their homes.”
-
It appears the court has already indicated the Second Amendment is an individual right, and will rule as such. This has always been my reading of the prior Miller decision. The collective rights view will be summarily dismissed and the court doesn’t want a bunch of time spent on whether the Second Amendment is an individual right versus a collective right. Being highly educated men and women, if they wanted a generalist brief on whether the Second Amendment was a collective right or an individual right, they would have asked for it. Words such as “Is the Second Amendment an individual right or a collective right of the states?” would have been used. Instead, they asked for whether the dc gun ban violates “the Second Amendment Right of individuals.” That portion of Second Amendment argument appears to have been decided in favor of the individual rights view.
-
Lord, here we go again with the Militia. Their Order seems to be worded as the court not wanting to waste time arguing about who is or isn’t in a militia, which necessarily means they don’t view this issue as controlling. By saying they want the argument limited to people who are not affiliated with a militia, they indicate the being in the militia or not is immaterial. This case will not be decided under some obscure section of law defining militia membership, the Court seems to want to resolve the issue independent of the militia being material to the right or not. i.e. they don’t want to revisit the issue if the definition of the militia changes, militia statues are withdrawn or something similar.
-
It appears that the Court wants to talk about firearms in general. This is important, because DC has been trying to say “we can ban handguns so long as we let you own rifles or shotguns.” This appears to me to indicate that they aren’t going to get into a Miller-type of analysis, a firearm is a firearm for the purposes of this Second Amendment decision.
-
This is the most problematic point as far as getting a broad pro-gun decision, but honestly it is one that the Plaintiffs asked for and welcome. This ruling will be restricted to use of a firearm in your own home. This is probably the cleanest, easiest route home for gun proponents. We aren’t going to have to talk about guns in schools, guns in bars or whatever other sort of horror show the Bradys want to dream up while trying to determine whether or not this is a right and what it protects. The threshold issue will be determined (is it a right or isn’t it) in the cleanest environment possible. Homes have always enjoyed the strongest presumption of protection and privacy, and this is the most secure environment to get the right established. My GUESS is that there is a majority of justices who are willing to rule for pro-gun advocates, perhaps even a unanimous group, but only if it is strictly limited to inside the home for the first round decision. The hardcore group of pro-gun justices want the camels nose in the tent as strong as possible, so the compromise that was made was that this case would be limited to just a nice, clean issue of in your own home, which they can all agree upon.
We have everything to win and nothing to lose. The courts in the past have ALREADY generally ruled in favor of “collective” over “individual” right in regards to the 2nd Amendment, including the Supreme Court way back.
If the court changes it’s mind here, then that’s HUGE. If not, then we’re par for the course at this point.
Even with the “militia” argument however, I find that the Anti’s argument falls apart. I personally do not feel that the National Guard fills the role of the state militia. It’s too closely involved with the federal military - and the Fed call the the Guard all the time now, regularly. They have become an extension of the regular military and are not really under state control anymore, at least most of the time.
Think about - can a state elect to disband it’s National Guard entirely? Is it a federal requirement to maintain the National Guard? If the purpose of the “militia” is to provide the states with a force seperate from the federal army, and the Guard is the “militia” - then why would the Feds require a Guard (if they do)? If they require it, it’s for one reason only - because they treat it like the Army Reserve.
My personal thoughts have always been that the Guard should NEVER be called up for federal service OUTCONUS - and should purely be reserved for “homeland” (I hate that term) defense.
Here’s today’s edition of [i]Non Sequitur[/i] cartoon, for those who appreciate such editorial wit. 
