Heller - not until Wednesday 6-25 or Thursday 6-26

[Liberty1]

:(

http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?option=com_altcaster&task=siteviewaltcast&altcast_code=909aaea565

10:11 Ben Winograd - Rothgery is the last opinion of the day.




10:12 Tom Goldstein - The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller. The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia.


10:14 Tom Goldstein - The Court has announced that it will release opinions again at 10am Wednesday. Because seven opinions remain, it will almost certainly have one additional day. Based on past practice, that day likely will be Thursday.

:p


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/new-statpack-plus-what-to-expect-next-week/

[EastBayRidge]

From SCOTUSBLOG

"Tom Goldstein - The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller. The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia."

Next opinion day is Wednesday.

[tgriffin]

Son of a..... the wait is killing me... I'm hungover as hell, this isnt the news I was hoping for.

[Ballistic043]

excellent.

now we can stop posting about it until we hear something!


seriously though...

[dixieD]

aaaaarrrrggggh

[glockman19]

I just read on the SCOUTS Blog.

I guess Thursday. If NOT then it will come the last day of this years session.

[yellowfin]

Are they trying to have it be the very last thing they say so they can hop on a plane and get out of the country for fear of backlash?

[DeeL2003]

I just read on the SCOUTS Blog.

I guess Thursday. If NOT then it will come the last day of this years session.


Jeez... Yeah I hope by freakin Thurs not any longer!

[savageevo]

Okay I have to say it. Well at least its not TWO Weeks. LOL

[FreshTapCoke]

Por-que!?!
Oh well; at least I'll be back in town and can buy something to commemorate the day.

[dfletcher]

I know what the hold up is - they're trying to decide if machine gun is one word, two words or hyphenated. :hurray:

[gir007]

Well what a bummer. I won't be able to know what happend until i get off work at 11pm, I get to work from 6am to 11pm. ill be going nuts at work! what will I do? :eek:

[aileron]

I know what the hold up is - they're trying to decide if machine gun is one word, two words or hyphenated. :hurray:

Touche'

[FortCourageArmory]

10:12 Tom Goldstein - The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller. The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia.
So, if Scalia is the only Justice from the majority side without an opinion filed, doesn't that pretty much mean Heller is in the bag? I mean, c'mon...can anyone foresee Scalia coming down on the "not an individual right" side?

[hoffmang]

Heller has been going individual rights since Kennedy asked about Grizly bears about 5 minutes in to oral arguments. Now its just a question on where we end up on the weak to strong decision continuum.

-Gene

[yellowfin]

They are making it much too difficult to plan the Calguns Post Heller keg party. :mad:

Or should we have a turkey frying? :chef:

[Calguns2000]

From SCOTUS Blog:

"It does look exceptionally likely that Justice Scalia is writing the principal opinion for the Court in Heller – the D.C. guns case. That is the only opinion remaining from the sitting and he is the only member of the Court not to have written a majority opinion from the sitting. There is no indication that he lost a majority from March. His only dissent from the sitting is for two Justices in Indiana v. Edwards. So, that’s a good sign for advocates of a strong individual rights conception of the Second Amendment and a bad sign for D.C."

[E Pluribus Unum]

Now its just a question on where we end up on the weak to strong decision continuum.

Does that have something to do with John de Lancie?

[gir007]

From SCOTUS Blog:

"It does look exceptionally likely that Justice Scalia is writing the principal opinion for the Court in Heller – the D.C. guns case. That is the only opinion remaining from the sitting and he is the only member of the Court not to have written a majority opinion from the sitting. There is no indication that he lost a majority from March. His only dissent from the sitting is for two Justices in Indiana v. Edwards. So, that’s a good sign for advocates of a strong individual rights conception of the Second Amendment and a bad sign for D.C."

I don't understand why it says bad sign for d.c.? was he trying to say that d.c. will be worse with the decision?

[RomanDad]

I don't understand why it says bad sign for d.c.? was he trying to say that d.c. will be worse with the decision?

D.C. is a litigant in the case.... Its "The District of Columbia versus Heller" If Heller wins, DC loses.

[E Pluribus Unum]

I don't understand why it says bad sign for d.c.? was he trying to say that d.c. will be worse with the decision?

Bad for DC means "Good for the gun owners".

[rbgaynor]

I know what the hold up is - they're trying to decide if machine gun is one word, two words or hyphenated. :hurray:

:D


It does look exceptionally likely that Justice Scalia is writing the principal opinion for the Court in Heller – the D.C. guns case. That is the only opinion remaining from the sitting and he is the only member of the Court not to have written a majority opinion from the sitting. There is no indication that he lost a majority from March. His only dissent from the sitting is for two Justices in Indiana v. Edwards. So, that’s a good sign for advocates of a strong individual rights conception of the Second Amendment and a bad sign for D.C.

Very interesting - and great news if accurate.

[dixieD]

Bad for the D.C. government, good for the citizens of D.C.

[Liberty1]

Brady is in Retreat mode

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/06/brady_on_heller.php

http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/2ndamend/dcvheller/videos/?bro_issue=jun&bro_year=2008#1

[HowardW56]

Bad for the D.C. government, good for the citizens of D.C.


Bad for the city of Chicago, City of New York....

Good for those who wish to own guns in those cities....

[gir007]

Ok that part of d.c. losing didn't click into my head..lol. hopefully we will see crime drop as the laws get better there, to have solid proof that guns are important to stopping crime as recreational.

[bulgron]

Brady is in Retreat mode

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/06/brady_on_heller.php

http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/2ndamend/dcvheller/videos/?bro_issue=jun&bro_year=2008#1

I don't suppose they'll retreat so far that we'll never hear from them again?

You know, I hear that gun control is all the rage in England. Should we all chip in and buy them a one-way-ticket? I hear passage on tramp freighters, especially if you get a corner in the hold, is pretty damn cheap. :D

[RomanDad]

I don't suppose they'll retreat so far that we'll never hear from them again?



Nope. Guys.... If the USSC rules for an individual right, THE OTHER SIDE WILL NOT SIT IDLY BY.... They will immediately begin trying to pass NEW gun laws to see if they can "feel out" where the limits of the law lie.... We will challenge those laws as they are passed, but with a little ammo in our bag we didnt have before.... BUT... IF WE LOSE FEDERAL ELECTIONS, AND LOSE THE MAJORITIES ON THE FEDERAL BENCH, Heller could be gutted when the Federal courts hear those challenges.

As much as Heller means for us, it will be a HUGE BOOM to gun control groups.... MONEY WILL COME POURING IN, with which they will try to overturn Heller.... Just as conservatives have tried to overturn Roe. Thats the game... Its a relatively undefined area of law, and thus easy to challenge... Its the cases that follow that flesh out the real edges of the law.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

So, if Scalia is the only Justice from the majority side without an opinion filed, doesn't that pretty much mean Heller is in the bag? I mean, c'mon...can anyone foresee Scalia coming down on the "not an individual right" side?

Wild speculation of potential outcomes:

1. Scalia is writing the majority opinion; it's a plurality split decision. His law clerks are researching every meaningful phrase taken from various circuit courts decision to include in the opinion in order to bolster closely divided minority decisions in favor of RKBA because of the limited utility a plurality decision has in being used as precendent.

2. Heller has lost in conference, and crotchety old Justice John Paul Stevens is feebly penning the majority decision and taking his sweet time doing it. No individual right to RKBA, DC's ban prevails, antigun activists are elated and energized, George Soros starts funding gun control efforts with his billions, and pro-RKBA people fracture and are scattered like nomads in diaspora. Soon comes the Dark Ages, as the fires of liberty are finally extinguished and America descends into a Gomorrah-like cross between the movies 'Idiocracy' and 'Blade Runner'.

3. Chief Justice Roberts recognizes the gravity and immense social impact of a SCOTUS decision on an article in the Bill Of Rights, and he pressures the members of the court for the strongest possible unified decision in the interests of clarity. The basic foundation issue of whether the court finds an individual right is unanimous; 9-0 in favor of Heller. However, the court is ideologically split on to what extent the right can be restricted. Roberts personally writes a watered down cooperative decision that they can largely agree upon, the draft is revised several times, but several Justices release their own majority and dissenting opinions when the debate is summarily brought to a close.

4. Heller is a split majority instead of unanimity. Scalia writes a draft of the majority opinion, compares the insultingly idiotic dissenting opinions to his draft, becomes infuriated and gathers up enough support from the majority justices about the furthest they'd be willing to sign onto 'incorporation' and the Originalist sense, then returns to his majority opinion and edits it to read like the script of a Toho movie where Godzilla rampages through Tokyo slapping King Ghidorah and Rodan up one side of the street and down the other. The Brady Campaign and all antigun activists are roasted alive by Godscalia's radioactive breath.

My guess at likelihood is 1 then 3 then 2 then 4.

[bulgron]

My guess at likelihood is 1 then 3 then 2 then 4.

You missed:

5. The court knows this is a highly controversial and widely anticipated decision, and so for theatrical reasons they're dragging it out as long as possible. It's historical, so it'll be the last ruling they make in this session -- sort of an exclamation point to all the work they've been doing. But in the end, all the decision does is acknowledge the 2A to be an individual right and D.C.'s gun ban is unconstitutional under any possible standard of scrutiny that can be applied to an individual right.

I fully expect that what I wrote above is what is going to happen. But that will be enough to launch a thousand federal lawsuits.

[Blackwater OPS]

Need to play that Tom Petty song...

[Piper]

Something's going on with this, and I'm at that point where however SCOTUS decides, someone is going to be extremly surprised. This issue is way too important to not get it out there ASAP. At this point, I'm becoming less confident in a positive outcome.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Something's going on with this, and I'm at that point where however SCOTUS decides, someone is going to be extremly surprised. This issue is way too important to not get it out there ASAP. At this point, I'm becoming less confident in a positive outcome.

They are confident that Scalia and Souter are writing the decisions....

Maybe it is possible Souter is writing the majority and Scalia is writing the decent and that is why the chief handed it off?

All is possible in good old America...

[RomanDad]

Something's going on with this, and I'm at that point where however SCOTUS decides, someone is going to be extremly surprised. This issue is way too important to not get it out there ASAP. At this point, I'm becoming less confident in a positive outcome.

Why? Whats the rush? The DC ban has been in place 30 years... Three more days wont make a difference. Theres no emergency.... Nobody is about to be executed because of it.... Its just another big case before the Court... And they move at their own pace.

[Harrison_Bergeron]

Just a few months ago many predicted it would be the last decision released as to have the greatest impact on the election, now that he time has come everyone is getting scared because they are saving it for last.

[EastBayRidge]

I can't wait to see the reaction here if they carry it over to October... :43:

[Subvertz]

Is it possible to have more input, if they decide the previous arguements were insufficient? I don't know a lot about SCOTUS proceedures....

[dfletcher]

I would be most unhappy if I lost two of my favorites in one week - George Carlin on Sunday and then the 2nd Amendment ......

[DedEye]

:( :mad: I really wanted to find out the decision before I left!

[chris]

this is driving me nuts. but hopefully the wait will be worth it.

[Hopi]

:( :mad: I really wanted to find out the decision before I left!

I heard they have the internet machines in England now....:p

[Two Shots]

:TFH: I don't trust them to do what is right. Seems like thier stalling for that Hail Mary pass.


But thats just my conspiracy side talking, Gotta go, I hear a Black Helo coming.

:toetap05:
I hate this waiting stuff.

[HowardW56]

:TFH: I don't trust them to do what is right. Seems like thier stalling for that Hail Mary pass.


But thats just my conspiracy side talking, Gotta go, I hear a Black Helo coming.

:toetap05:
I hate this waiting stuff.

Is that a black helo with men in white coats, bringing you a special jacket?
</IMG></IMG>

[dfletcher]

If Heller is decided as an individual right, but with certain restrictions as is the 1st, is it likely that the court (and if Scalia is writing how does that impact) will issue some sort of guidelines or let the states hash out what is reasonable and what is an infringement? In short, would the court not permit any state to have gun laws more restrictive than federal gun laws?

[ldivinag]

MODS/kestryll...

i suggest locking a blank thread for just the specific talk of the heller decision WHEN it comes out...

otherwise, there will be millions of it, that day...

lol...

[mblat]

If Heller is decided as an individual right, but with certain restrictions as is the 1st, is it likely that the court (and if Scalia is writing how does that impact) will issue some sort of guidelines or let the states hash out what is reasonable and what is an infringement? In short, would the court not permit any state to have gun laws more restrictive than federal gun laws?

It isn't impossible, but highly unlikely. It is even unlikely that they will address incorporation issue.
They don;t have to and Roberts have a reputation of liking very narrow decisions.

[yellowfin]

Question: exactly how has incorporation EVER escaped in the first place, other than by perversions of logic like Hickman v Block? I'm still baffled as to why that decision didn't get stomped out like a cigarette butt by an appeal.

[rkt88edmo]

Godzcalia - lol

[Two Shots]

MODS/kestryll...

i suggest locking a blank thread for just the specific talk of the heller decision WHEN it comes out...

otherwise, there will be millions of it, that day...

lol...


Good idea, Don't want to go thru all of them to get the info.

HowardW56:Is that a black helo with men in white coats, bringing you a special jacket?

No, It was a false alarm. Just some people looking for Area 51 ;)

[hoffmang]

Question: exactly how has incorporation EVER escaped in the first place, other than by perversions of logic like Hickman v Block? I'm still baffled as to why that decision didn't get stomped out like a cigarette butt by an appeal.

Pure racism. For the Second Amendment it was to let many of the perpetrators of the Colfax Massacre walk for killing about 20 black men who'd been legally elected to various posts in Colfax Louisiana. Those are the facts behind US v.Cruikshank.

With Scalia writing I think there will be some guidance to lower courts but we shall see.

-Gene

[Hopi]

With Scalia writing I think there will be some guidance to lower courts but we shall see.

-Gene

Does this mean the level of scrutiny used?

[bulgron]

Does this mean the level of scrutiny used?

Roberts doesn't seem to like the idea of the traditional levels of scrutiny. I believe the problem is that he doesn't think they will be applied honestly by courts that don't very much like the 2A. Anyway, during the oral arguments he seemed interested in finding some standard other than "scrutiny" by which the courts can tell if the 2A is being violated.

Sort of like the Miller Test, only not the Miller Test. :D

[SchooBaka]

No wonder I didnt hear anything in the news about it today.
The wait is killing me too. Oh well; I'll say thursday, that way I'm not on pins and needles any more than I need to be wendsday.

[6172crew]

With Scalia writing I think there will be some guidance to lower courts but we shall see.

-Gene


I hope they set it straight once and for all.

The whole class 3 thing is wacky as hell and I cant see how something hasnt been done about it.

New silencers: can be had and cost $200 for the stamp
New SBR/SBS: can be had and cost $200 for the stamp
New Machine gun: Can not be had unless your LEO/.gov or class 2 FFL
Old machine gun(pre 1986): can be had for $200 tax stamp
Old Dealer sample cant be transfered to you unless you are class 3 FFL SOT.
Buy a class 3 item out of state: cost you $400, 200 for the dealer to dealer then 200 to you?:confused:

Why do they do stupid stuff like this? Keep it simple: $200 and the background should get you the stamp imo.:cool:

[drclark]

:willy_nilly: <<=== is basically me until the ruling is handed down.


The suspense is killing me.

drc

[DedEye]

I heard they have the internet machines in England now....:p

Yes, but I wanted good news for the plane ride and the ability to lord it over the Brits as soon as I got there :p.

[bwiese]

...and the ability to lord it over the Brits as soon as I got there :p.

You can do that even if you just have a functional set of non-rotten teeth.

[jumbopanda]

You can do that even if you just have a functional set of non-rotten teeth.

ZING!

[yellowfin]

I don't mind the $200 tax in and of itself except that it and the process make prices artificially high by squelching volume of sales. $200 + current price of a can > natural price + $200. The things should be $50-100 but the restrictions jack them up to $300+ pre tax. There is no excuse for that.

[Codelphious]

I don't mind the $200 tax in and of itself except that it and the process make prices artificially high by squelching volume of sales. $200 + current price of a can > natural price + $200. The things should be $50-100 but the restrictions jack them up to $300+ pre tax. There is no excuse for that.


My history isn't that great, but this does sound sort of familiar... Almost as if it was somthing the crown imposed upon the colonists. Stamp something?... Something Act of 1765? I can't remember.

Of course the reason for the act was to raise funds, whereas this is to tax out of existence. Let's remember, when the $200 stamp tax was conceived it equated to an entire month's salary for a moderately wealthy man.

How about we let the free market decide? That's what I'm looking for in Heller.

[hoffmang]

NFA is not in front of the court so don't have a lot of immediate expectations about the NFA in Heller.

-Gene

[tombinghamthegreat]

I can't stand waiting.....haaa. It better be a favorable ruling in our favor.

[yellowfin]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9469 . To the point of the NFA: In Miller, two mobsters, Jack Miller and Frank Layton, were indicted for transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state lines, in violation of the 1934 National Firearms Act. Neither Miller nor Layton was charged with firing the gun or committing any crime involving use of the gun. They were indicted for a technical violation of the registration and tax requirements of the Act.

When the lower court held that the NFA violated the Second Amendment, the U.S. government appealed to the Supreme Court. There, the case took a strange turn. The court gave Miller's counsel, Paul Gutensohn, a mere two weeks to submit his written brief and prepare for a grueling interrogation by the justices. Gutensohn, who was court-appointed and had not been compensated, replied he had received neither the government's brief nor a copy of the trial record. He said he wanted to file a brief, but doubted he could travel all the way to Washington, D.C., for oral argument.

The court then offered Gutensohn a delay until late April. Apparently exasperated, he declined by telegram: "Suggest case be submitted on [government's] brief. Unable to obtain any money from clients to be present and argue case." Gutensohn's proposal - that only the government's brief would inform the court, with no response by the defendants - was arguably malpractice and surely contrary to his clients' interests. He should have asked that new counsel be appointed and that the argument be further delayed if necessary. That would have offered a semblance of due process to Miller and Layton. More important, it would have ensured that the crucial Second Amendment question would get a full briefing and fair hearing before the court. In any event, Miller and Layton had no written brief to support them, and no legal representation at oral argument.

When it was all over, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's holding that the NFA violated the Second Amendment. The high court's conclusion hinged, not on the defendants' qualification for militia service, but on the particular weapon that was the subject of their indictment. Here's the crucial passage from McReynolds' opinion: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun ... has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Thus, Miller applies to the type of weapon, not to the question whether the Second Amendment protects all individuals, only members of a militia or just states.

McReynolds' refusal to resolve that key question triggered a debate that lasts to this day. In the end, Miller was sent back to the lower court to determine whether a sawed-off shotgun had military utility. Before a new trial could be conducted, Jack Miller was shot and killed. Frank Layton agreed to a plea bargain and was sentenced to five years on probation. That is to say that the Miller ruling was illegitimate, and if Miller had a more serious lawyer and better conditions, we wouldn't have an NFA at all. We don't deserve to have to suffer under the NFA, it has accomplished no good whatsoever, and we'll be a lot better off to be rid of it and all of the nasty little offspring it has produced.

Every anti gun law irritates me, and every time they press for a new one the old ones are not taken to account for not having done the work they were said to do. The anti gun people are like drunk babbling bums buying lottery tickets.

[Casual Observer]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9469 . To the point of the NFA: That is to say that the Miller ruling was illegitimate, and if Miller had a more serious lawyer and better conditions, we wouldn't have an NFA at all. We don't deserve to have to suffer under the NFA, it has accomplished no good whatsoever, and we'll be a lot better off to be rid of it and all of the nasty little offspring it has produced.

Your reasoning can be applied to a lot of things that happened in those times.

Marijuana is illegal because hemp farmers were competition for the tobacco farmers during the years of the depression. Guess who had the better lobbyist? :cool:

[DedEye]

You can do that even if you just have a functional set of non-rotten teeth.

Lucky for me the pearly whites are shining straight and bright :D. I'll make sure to remind them that they live in a hyper-invasive nannystate where self defense is outlawed and Orwellian forms of surveillance are allowed despite no discernible impact on their increasingly high crime rate :43:.

[tiki]

I don't care much about the $200 tax. After all, pretty soon thats going to be a tank of gas. What I care about is the restriction on new automatic firearms. Its ridiculous that an AR-15 will run you just under $1000, but an M-16 will set you back at least $16,000.
The fact that police departments can buy them but citizens can't is exactly what I think the Heller ruling should address.
Class 3 for cops? Then Class 3 for citizens.
CCW for cops? Then CCW for citizens.
Sport Utility Rifles for cops? Then Sport Utility Rifles for citizens. (Sport Utility Rifle - Ha ha. I love it!! This board rocks.) <- Edit: Added this line.
No safe handgun roster for cops? Then no safe handgun roster for citizens.
It's time this crap stopped.

[6172crew]

I don't care much about the $200 tax. After all, pretty soon thats going to be a tank of gas. What I care about is the restriction on new automatic firearms. Its ridiculous that an AR-15 will run you just under $1000, but an M-16 will set you back at least $16,000.
The fact that police departments can buy them but citizens can't is exactly what I think the Heller ruling should address.
Class 3 for cops? Then Class 3 for citizens.
CCW for cops? Then CCW for citizens.
Sport Utility Rifles for cops? Then Sport Utility Rifles for citizens. (Sport Utility Rifle - Ha ha. I love it!! This board rocks.) <- Edit: Added this line.
No safe handgun roster for cops? Then no safe handgun roster for citizens.
It's time this crap stopped.

This was the point I was trying to make, why is a LE machine gun available for the $200 but not those who are law abiding and have the $200 for a post 1986 MG?

Just make the things available to those who can have them imo. Finger crossed they touch on this subject.

[GuyW]

This was the point I was trying to make, why is a LE machine gun available for the $200 but not those who are law abiding and have the $200 for a post 1986 MG?


Are you sure LE pays the tax? I'm not....

[yellowfin]

The tax itself is irrelevent in the case of LE. What they have is an open door to fair market prices based on an open supply, paying $800 for a new $800 rifle instead of $10,000+ for a used one.

[bulgron]

If Heller goes our way at all, the first step should maybe be to challenge the LEO exemptions in firearm laws. After all, they create a privileged class of citizens that under the 14th amendment shouldn't be allowed to exist.

[Hopi]

If Heller goes our way at all, the first step should maybe be to challenge the LEO exemptions in firearm laws. After all, they create a privileged class of citizens that under the 14th amendment shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Spot on.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=1305524#post1305524

[Pvt. Cowboy]

Spot on.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=1305524#post1305524

Yes, he does make a compelling point.

[mblat]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9469 . To the point of the NFA: That is to say that the Miller ruling was illegitimate, and if Miller had a more serious lawyer and better conditions, we wouldn't have an NFA at all. We don't deserve to have to suffer under the NFA, it has accomplished no good whatsoever, and we'll be a lot better off to be rid of it and all of the nasty little offspring it has produced.

Every anti gun law irritates me, and every time they press for a new one the old ones are not taken to account for not having done the work they were said to do. The anti gun people are like drunk babbling bums buying lottery tickets.

Considering that in 1934 there was NO pro-gun movement and pro-gun research per se, we may really dislike the ruling if Miller would've been represented and argued. Don't forget 1930s were years were expansion of the government was widely viewed as a good thing ( kind of like today ).

"Miller test", while not worded perfectly actually makes a lot of sense
Military weapon - hands off
Everything else - be my guest - regulate it to death.

I don't see how this approach is inconsistent with 2nd amendment.


If Heller goes our way at all, the first step should maybe be to challenge the LEO exemptions in firearm laws. After all, they create a privileged class of citizens that under the 14th amendment shouldn't be allowed to exist.

And yes - if you have to pick one thing that bothers me about all anti-gun laws - it isn't even the laws, but LEO exceptions to them.

[LAK Supply]

"Miller test", while not worded perfectly actually makes a lot of sense
Military weapon - hands off
Everything else - be my guest - regulate it to death.

I don't see how this approach is inconsistent with 2nd amendment.


The glaring flaw with this is that the 2A was named to protect the people from the government.... I don't think the Founders ever intended to have the fox guard the henhouse. Of course the fox prefers unarmed hens.....why would they ever Constitutionally be allowed to regulate the thing that is meant for protection from them?

[Codelphious]

The glaring flaw with this is that the 2A was named to protect the people from the government.... I don't think the Founders ever intended to have the fox guard the henhouse. Of course the fox prefers unarmed hens.....why would they ever Constitutionally be allowed to regulate the thing that is meant for protection from them?

Exactly.

To add to this, think of the position of the RTKABA in the bill of rights. It's second only to freedom of speech/press. The first two amendments are checks against the government, the first through information, the second through force. Clearly the founders felt these to be the most important God given rights to ensure liberty.

Moreover, and I digress a bit, but I constantly hear banter about, "well, there're limits to freedom of speech, so limits to arms follows..." NO!

The wording is completely different here, and for good reason. The word "infringe" is so much more powerful than "abridge." For example, think of "copyright infringement." Copying an entire book or even a tiny piece is still infringement no matter how to slice it. Why then is it okay to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, even just a little? It's not, and the framers knew this.

[hoffmang]

Just a note - details for tomorrow/Wednesday if Heller is handed down:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=107596

-Gene

[tetris]

From SCOUTS Blog:

Tom Goldstein - To recap for those watching the Heller decision, it will definitely be decided tomorrow morning.

:D

[Pvt. Cowboy]

Heller is a split majority instead of unanimity. Scalia writes a draft of the majority opinion, compares the insultingly idiotic dissenting opinions to his draft, becomes infuriated and gathers up enough support from the majority justices about the furthest they'd be willing to sign onto 'incorporation' and the Originalist sense, then returns to his majority opinion and edits it to read like the script of a Toho movie where Godzilla rampages through Tokyo slapping King Ghidorah and Rodan up one side of the street and down the other. The Brady Campaign and all antigun activists are roasted alive by Godscalia's radioactive breath.

WINNAH!!! :D

[GuyW]

It's second only to freedom of speech/press.

Actually THIRD: freedom OF religion....

Ironic, no?


Clearly the founders felt these to be the most important God given rights to ensure liberty.