Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

SCOTUS to hear Heller v. DC

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • KenpoProfessor
    Banned
    • Mar 2006
    • 1780

    SCOTUS to hear Heller v. DC



    I hope this works out to our benefit.

    Check out this one also, it may not be updated or someone got ahead of themselves at MSNBC.



    Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

    Clyde
    Last edited by KenpoProfessor; 09-30-2007, 3:39 PM.
  • #2
    VegasND
    Calguns Addict
    • Aug 2007
    • 8621

    This one will be a nail-biter for those of us on the side of the 2nd amendment. I would rather see a definitive ruling on the meaning of the amendment than a narrow one. But, however it goes, I hope it is pro-individual right.
    People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.
    --River Tam

    Comment

    • #3
      Liberty1
      Calguns Addict
      • Apr 2007
      • 5541

      Is that saying they will take the case or just consider? I'm not finding it verified on any other new source yet.
      Last edited by Liberty1; 09-30-2007, 4:55 PM.
      False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
      -- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/

      Comment

      • #4
        Scarecrow Repair
        Senior Member
        • May 2006
        • 2425

        This is not the news we are waiting for

        This is just the normal news about the cases they do have and may take later.
        Mention the Deacons for Defense and Justice and make both left and right wingnuts squirm

        Comment

        • #5
          aileron
          Veteran Member
          • Oct 2006
          • 3272

          Yahoo has a video of it right now from CNN.



          They said.

          "Expected to Decide"

          Which would mean hasn't excepted.
          Look at the tyranny of party -- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty -- a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes -- and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction... Mark Twain

          sigpic

          Comment

          • #6
            FreedomIsNotFree
            Veteran Member
            • Feb 2006
            • 3657

            One thing about SCOTUS. They have an uncanny ability to surprise. I'm worried they may try to split the difference in some manner.
            It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire

            Good people sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

            Comment

            • #7
              trashman
              Veteran Member
              • Dec 2006
              • 3823

              Originally posted by FreedomIsNotFree
              One thing about SCOTUS. They have an uncanny ability to surprise. I'm worried they may try to split the difference in some manner.
              I was just watching 60 Minutes' interview with Clarence Thomas and mulling this over. Thomas is a staunch "states' rights" defender, but I'm pretty sure he'd come down with the majority on this, i.e., 2A as an individual right.

              My sense is that this will be the path forged by the court; the larger "individual" right will be affirmed and precedent set, but so too will be the states' ability to regulate that right as their legislatures see fit. This is as about as internally consistent conservative legal opinion you'll get from the Court, IMO.

              And, truth be told, that's not going to help us in CA with the List (handguns or AR's), but it will stop the handgun ban nonsense that pops up every few years here in San Francisco.

              My worry is that if the court goes farther than expected, it could cause a backlash at the Congressional level -- which could take us years to recover from.

              --Neill
              sigpic

              Comment

              • #8
                stator
                Senior Member
                • Oct 2002
                • 850

                I do not think it was granted but just the media jumping the gun. A quick search of todays order list shows not results for Heller, and four non-related results for Parker being denied.

                ETA: searched again for the docket # 07-290, but no results were returned.
                Last edited by stator; 10-01-2007, 7:54 PM.
                **
                3 Rules of Skeet: Head on the gun, eye on the target, and proper lead
                M1a - If you can see it, you can hit it
                Friends don't let friends vote demorat

                Comment

                • #9
                  wilit
                  Calguns Addict
                  • Dec 2005
                  • 5200

                  Originally posted by trashman
                  And, truth be told, that's not going to help us in CA with the List (handguns or AR's), but it will stop the handgun ban nonsense that pops up every few years here in San Francisco.

                  --Neill
                  It may help us. If SCOTUS decides 2A is individual, but states can regulate, that (in my opinion) rules in our favor in the long run. That could mean that AW bans are unconstitutional, but regulation (such as NFA weapons) is allowed. Perhaps there may be a CA AW tax stamp in our future.
                  "If a man hasn't found something worth dying for, he isn't fit to live." - Martin Luther King Jr.
                  "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
                  "You have to be willing to swing your nuts like a deadblow hammer to put these jackasses in their place." - AJAX22
                  "The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry." - William F Buckley Jr.
                  sigpic

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Liberty1
                    Calguns Addict
                    • Apr 2007
                    • 5541

                    Originally posted by wilit
                    It may help us. If SCOTUS decides 2A is individual, but states can regulate, that (in my opinion) rules in our favor in the long run. That could mean that AW bans are unconstitutional, but regulation (such as NFA weapons) is allowed. Perhaps there may be a CA AW tax stamp in our future.
                    The only issue that will have any binding authority in Heller will be the "in the residence" issues of possession of a firearm in an operable (loaded and ready) condition. Hopefully the court will expound like the Emerson and Parker decisions and give more guidance to district courts on the other issues regarding the 2A. It will be years, and perhaps not until the circuit courts are again in conflict, before another case reaches the SCOTUS regarding carry outside the home.
                    False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
                    -- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Charliegone
                      Calguns Addict
                      • Oct 2005
                      • 6099

                      Originally posted by wilit
                      It may help us. If SCOTUS decides 2A is individual, but states can regulate, that (in my opinion) rules in our favor in the long run. That could mean that AW bans are unconstitutional, but regulation (such as NFA weapons) is allowed. Perhaps there may be a CA AW tax stamp in our future.
                      Hell that's better than nothing at all...besides, this can be worked back to no tax stamp....since they wouldn't be able to go forward with anything new, plus there would be some advantages to this (like "reintroducing AW's to the public" haha...sounds kind of funny.)


                      I will vote for a donkey-sex maniac if he's pro-gun.
                      -BWiese

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      UA-8071174-1