Heller is a go!

 

SCOTUS decides to hear DC v. Heller. Hold your breath and pray!

1. Someone tell me when I can start breathing again.  I’ve got a scary feeling that the final decision will be based on something obscure that most of us would consider totally inconsequential.

   Posted by Dr. Jeff       11/20/2007  at  06:56 PM  



2. Can we dare to hope that the court will recognize that “the people” means the same in this one as it does in the rest?

   Posted by cmblake6       11/20/2007  at  08:35 PM  



3. I’m praying for the full monty: that the Second is an individual right, that it is fully incorporated by the Fourteenth (thus making every single state gun control law void, along with the GCA ‘68 and it’s later incarnations) and that Miller was based on faulty reasoning and is thus overturned.

   Yeah yeah, snowball’s chance, I know. But I gots hope! After all ... all of this is what “shall not be infringed” really means.

   Posted by Drew458       11/20/2007  at  10:20 PM  



4. The second amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms.  It assumes that the right already exists and guarantees that it will not be infringed.  And “the people” means exactly that.  My $.02 worth.

   Posted by ORWAC86       11/20/2007  at  10:45 PM  



5. Drew, you and I are in absolutely full agreement on the Second Amendment.  Every time I look it over, it keeps showing as an individual right, just like religion, speech and press.  I sometimes enjoy a visual fantasy of the anti gun crowd’s reactions should the court agree with you and me.

   Posted by Dr. Jeff       11/20/2007  at  11:29 PM  



6. Under the Liberal logic that the Second Ammendment applies to the National Guard, the First Ammendment “Congress shall make no law ... or abridging the freedom of speech,....”
   means that free speech is for the press and clergy but not for individuals, i.e. The People.
   Yet in fact these same Liberals scream “right to free speech” for everything from flag burning to offensive “art” to public defecation.

   Color me not nuanced, but how much clearer can the “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” be?

   Posted by dick       11/21/2007  at  12:45 AM  



7. Ah Dick, don’t you understand that merely being proficient in the use of English isn’t enough?  It’s the same question just about everyone here asks.  I can’t imagine the 2nd Amendment being a collective right any more than I can imagine speech, religion or the press being collective.

   Just like Drew, I believe that pretty much every gun control law since the 1968 GCA is unconstitutional.  I’m willing to prevent minors, felons and head cases (does that include liberals?) from owning firearms, but that’s about it.  Jeff Cooper was once asked how far he thought the 2nd Amendment should go, what kind of weapons were permitted.  We’ve all had nutroots ask us if individuals should have the right to possess nuclear weapons.  His response was that the line should be drawn between weapons that could be operated by one man, but should not extend to crew served weapons.  Remember, it is an individual, not a collective right.  I’m good with that. 

   Hmmmmmm, then again, what if a group of individuals collectively want to exercise their individual rights?

            

   Posted by Dr. Jeff       11/21/2007  at  04:53 AM  



8. Actually the Miller decision only ruled that a sawed off shotgun wasn’t a ‘suitable militia weapon’ and therefore wasn’t covered by the Second Amendment.  The Court said nothing about an individual right in that ruling.  Much to the embarassment of all the moonbati who claim it did.  (Actually, they’re not embarassed, they don’t have the brains to be embarassed.)

   Had any competent entity filed a ‘friend of the court’ brief showing the extensive use of sawed off shotguns in various armed conflicts from the Revolutionary War to (at that time) the Nicaraguan Campaigns; and now up to the present, the Court would be forced to admit a sawed off shotgun is indeed a martial weapon.  A niche weapon, to be sure, but no less one with martial applications.

   Here’s hoping the SCOTUS will rule on the side of Constitutionally based logic, proper grammar, individual rights and therefore, gun owners and enthusiasts.

   By the way, there are several pro-gun groups preparing ‘friend of the court’ briefs for presentation in this argument.  The NRA and SAF for sure, and I imagine some of the others will get in on it quickly.  Needless to say, the Brady Bunch and ‘Liberal Moonbats for an Enslaved Populace’ are preparing briefs to argue against personal freedoms.  Do what you can to support this critical effort.  If you can’t support one pro-gun outfit, support several.

   Posted by Archie       11/21/2007  at  11:31 AM  



9. I just can’t help but find extra bits to comment on with this one.  Do you think the NYT may have a fear that the DC gun ban actually is unconstitutional?  General sentiment here has been let’s go and get the nonsense over with, combined with quotations and commentary from historic and legal sources.  Some serious concern (especially on my part), but very little panic or fear.  Now we have the Times editorial. 

   The use of phrases like

   conform with the agenda of the anti-gun control lobby but cry out for rejection by the Supreme Court.

   and

   A decision that upends needed gun controls currently in place around the country would imperil the lives of Americans.

   seem to depend more on fear and emotionalism than on any appeal to reason.  They’re scared.  Especially with the second quote, they’re saying that even if the ban us unconstitutional, it should still stand.
   Posted by Dr. Jeff       11/21/2007  at  02:08 PM  



10. Yeah, maybe because the NYT is in NYC, which has the 2nd most loonie gun laws in the nation, after DC? I mean, moving from NYC to NJ feels like freedom.

    I think we only need 3 gun laws actually
    1) buy or build all the guns and ammo you want if you’re over 21
    a) caveat: if you are under the age of 21 you can use guns only with supervision
    b) note to criminals in jail: you get your guns back when you have served all your time
    2) use a gun to commit a crime and we hang you
    3) it isn’t a gun anymore and is subject to other rules if
    a) it’s too big to carry by yourself
    b) it requires more than one person to operate it
    c) its not safe to actuate right there in your hands
    
    Rule 3 would cover machine guns, cannons, bombs, missiles, poison gas, nukes, etc.
    Rule 2 would weed out the loonies and violent criminals real quick
    Rule 1 would restrict firearms to those who have attained “the age of reason”.

    Posted by Drew458       11/21/2007  at  02:46 PM  



11. "decide whether handguns can be banned in the nation’s capital” ?
    
    Nonsense.  Same rule applies country wide.  Leave our rights alone, period.

    Posted by Officer Pupp       11/22/2007  at  05:59 PM  



12. Just like Drew, I believe that pretty much every gun control law since the 1968 GCA is unconstitutional.

    We COULD go back to 1934, but I’ll settle for 1968.

    Posted by cmblake6       11/23/2007  at  06:50 PM  



13. I want 1934. Keep the gov off of my guns, regardless of what kind they are or how big or small. And expensive permits be damned.

    Posted by Drew458       11/23/2007  at  08:49 PM  



14. Hear, hear Drew!
    

    Posted by cmblake6       11/24/2007  at  09:24 AM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.