Supreme Court will hear DC gun ban case
This is interesting and potentially scary at the same time:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T1I5LG0&show_article=1
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T1I5LG0&show_article=1
0
-
This could be good or bad for us. I pray that our progress in the judiciary over the past 7 years is enough to see us safely to the logical conclusion, as our founding fathers intended, that gun ownership is OUR RIGHT, and NOT to be infringed. 0 -
Good.....at least now we'll know where we stand 0 -
We're fortunate in that the newly-appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts, is a recognized Constitutional scholar. I'm no scholar, but I was able to easily see what the Founding Fathers had in mind when I read the Federalist Papers. The intent of each word is explained well. 0 -
Scary, yes - but long overdue. We have our best chance with the current court than we will if it gets more justices like Ginsberg. Let's ROLL! 0 -
And with this particular case. It was already upheld by the appellate court that it was an individual right. They would have to overturn a very powerful decision. I don't think that will happen.
quote:And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, or to raise standing armies, unless from keeping their own arms necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions. Samuel Adams0 -
hhmm, maybe we should petition the federal legislature for a redress of grievances, namely all these unconstitutional gun laws.
after this case is heard out, whatever the outcome.0 -
I had an ATF investigator at my house last week. She said she hopes the Supreme Court upholds the Appellate Court's decision so people of DC and eslewhere can finally defend themselves. She also said she hoped a favorable decision might lead to a national concealed weapons permit. I really liked that woman! 0 -
The Brady bunch is preparing their lawyers for their say in this,just got the email from them about it. They are hoping to get guns banned by this. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by brier-49
The Brady bunch is preparing their lawyers for their say in this,just got the email from them about it. They are hoping to get guns banned by this.
Yup, they're nervous! [:D] This is from their website http://www.bradycampaign.org/
U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Most Significant Second Amendment Case in History
"The U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will consider D.C v. Heller this term. By agreeing to hear the appeal by the District of Columbia in the Parker/Heller case, the U.S. Supreme Court has the chance to reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety.
The D.C. Court of Appeals' decision in the Parker (now Heller) case was an example of judicial activism at its worst. The Court of Appeals ignored longstanding Supreme Court precedent and substituted its policy preferences for those of the District's elected representatives.
If the Supreme Court does not reverse the Court of Appeals's decision, sensible gun laws could be at risk...from the long-standing machine gun ban...to the Brady criminal background check law...to local and state gun laws like the ones in California and New Jersey banning military-style assault weapons."
Since when do "policy preferences" supercede the US Constitution? [:(!]0 -
The court could also just rule on the case in question and would therefore effect only the DC case. 0 -
Considering the makeup of the court at present, vs what it has been for quite a while, along with the very real possibility of a Democratic president teaming up with a democratic controlled legislature, in the not so distant future. Who do you think "they" would put on the bench?
If not now, when? We have the best chance of a favorable ruling being handed down now, than we have had in decades. Let's not pass this problem down to our children, and their children, as has been done to us. If we are to become slaves to the elite, a third world country, revolt, or whatever, lets get it on and get it over.0 -
quote:Originally posted by njretcop
The court could also just rule on the case in question and would therefore effect only the DC case.
But then, they'd be confronted with Chicago next, no doubt!
Ben0 -
From what I've heard today on CNN, a ruling by the Supreme Court is not expected until June 2008. 0 -
Libertarian Justice Antony Kennedy is the swing vote.
Roberts
Scalia
Thomas
Alito
If Kennedy joins them, I wonder who will right the opinion.
Yeah, I'm feeling confident. The Appellate Courts decision was well written. I am curious what part of the Appellate's decision D.C. had a grievance with to make the argument before the SCOTUS. I don't think they can just say "we don't like their ruling and we want a new one."0 -
quote:Originally posted by beneteau
From what I've heard today on CNN, a ruling by the Supreme Court is not expected until June 2008.
Well, we've waited this long so a few more months won't matter much. It will still be over before election day. Besides, maybe we can REALLY celebrate "Independence Day" next 4th of July!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Spider7115
I had an ATF investigator at my house last week. She said she hopes the Supreme Court upholds the Appellate Court's decision so people of DC and eslewhere can finally defend themselves. She also said she hoped a favorable decision might lead to a national concealed weapons permit. I really liked that woman!
Spider, It would be better if we didn't need a "permit" at all. I know you're just quoting the ATF lady but, that is NOT what I'd like to see. We would just be asking a different agency for permission to do what is already our right according to the Constitution.0 -
Well, let's look at the up side (potentially) of this. "Bearing arms" of the "militia". Hmmm- lets see now- last time I looked, the standard weapon of the US Army is a SELECT FIRE 5.56mm rifle...... So the 2nd amendment says I can have one- right? (Hey- I could also win the lottery- not that I really think either one is gonna happen)[:p] 0 -
Even if they denied to hear it [which they sometimes do] the lower court desision would stand. In a way I prefer that to happen since the 'high court' could very well lean left on this. 0 -
So, the latest a decision will come is june 08, earliest is march 08.
If its positive, I'd bet money that the CA AWB will go soon thereafter, and I'll be able to buy that Kel Tec RFB I've been lusting after.0 -
This is the big one!
Let's keep our fingers crossed.
I have a feeling that we will win this one. Of course if the justices would just follow the Constitution it would not be close.
I will love to hear the liberals howl next spring if this ruling goes our way.0 -
If kennedy is really a liberetarian, and the other 4 named are trueconservatives, we've got it locked up. 0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy
Ideology
Although appointed by a President who was both Republican and conservative, Kennedy's tenure on the Court has seen him take a somewhat mixed path. Kennedy's philosophy seems to be conservative and libertarian. While Kennedy has joined the conservative wing of the Court in most cases such as Stenberg v. Carhart, Bush v. Gore, United States v. Lopez, McConnell v. FEC, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, he voted with the liberal bloc in the cases of Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, Ashcroft v. ACLU, Roper v. Simmons, Gonzales v. Raich, Kelo v. City of New London, Massachusetts v. EPA, and Gonzales v. Oregon. At the same time, he also frustrates some constitutional law scholars by often forgoing conventional methods of explaining his holding and instead relying on vivid prose and unusual philosophy. Decisions in which Kennedy has mentioned European law have been frequently criticized, particularly by political conservatives.[1][2][3]
Kennedy will probably be remembered historically along with Sandra Day O'Connor as one of two swing voters in many 5-4 decisions during the Rehnquist Court. On issues of religion he holds to a far less separationist reading of the Establishment Clause than did Sandra Day O'Connor favoring a "Coercion test" that he detailed in County of Allegheny v. ACLU.
On the Roberts Court, Kennedy is expected to continue to be a pivotal swing vote. Indeed, his swing role may be even more pronounced than it was on the Rehnquist Court if, as many expect, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito join with Justices Scalia and Thomas to form a cohesive four-justice "conservative" voting bloc. On the other hand, either Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito could sometimes unite with Kennedy in order to form a conservative opinion with some moderate ground. On a few cases, Chief Justice Roberts was the swing vote while Kennedy sided with the conservatives. Alito has participated in too few cases this past term to label.
Kennedy supports a broad reading of the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which means he supports a constitutional right to abortion in principle, though he has voted to uphold several restrictions on that right, including laws to prohibit partial-birth abortions. He is "tough on crime" and opposes creating constitutional restrictions on the police, especially in Fourth Amendment cases involving searches for illegal drugs, although there are some exceptions, such as his concurrence in Ferguson v. City of Charleston. He opposes affirmative action as promoting stereotypes of minorities. He also takes a very broad view of constitutional protection for speech under the First Amendment, invalidating a congressional law prohibiting "virtual" child pornography in the 2002 decision, Ashcroft v. ACLU.[4]
[edit] Abortion
In 1992, Kennedy joined O'Connor and David Souter to form the troika[citation needed] who delivered the plurality opinion in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which re-affirmed in principle (though not in many details) the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the right to abortion under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Kennedy voted to uphold the restrictions on abortion at issue and considered going as far as to overturn Roe but switched that aspect of his vote during the consideration of Casey).[5] The plurality opinion, signed jointly by three justices appointed by the anti-Roe presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, ignited a firestorm of criticism from conservatives. Kennedy, however, dissented in the 2000 decision of Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down laws criminalizing partial-birth abortion.
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in 2007's Gonzales v. Carhart which held that a federal law criminalizing partial birth abortion did not violate the principles of Casey because it did not impose an "undue burden". The decision did not overrule Stenberg. [1]
[edit] Gay rights
Kennedy has often taken a liberal perspective in cases involving gay rights. He wrote the Court's opinion in the controversial 1996 case, Romer v. Evans, invalidating a provision in the Colorado Constitution denying homosexuals the right to bring local discrimination claims. In 2003, he authored the Court's opinion Lawrence v. Texas which invalidated criminal prohibitions against homosexual sodomy under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, overturning the Court's previous contrary ruling in 1986's Bowers v. Hardwick. In doing so, however, he was very careful to limit the extent of the opinion, declaring that the case did not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. In both cases, he sided with the more liberal members of the Court. Lawrence also controversially referenced international law in justifying its result. On the other hand, he voted to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's ban on gay scoutmasters in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale in 2000.
[edit] Capital punishment
Kennedy has generally voted to restrict the use of the death penalty. With the Court's majority in Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons he held unconstitutional the execution of the mentally ill and those under 18 at the time of the crime. However in Kansas v. Marsh, he declined to join the dissent, which questioned the overall "soundness" of the existing capital punishment system. His opinion for the Court in Roper, as in Lawrence, made extensive reference to international law, drawing the ire of then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who called Kennedy's opinion "incredibly outrageous" but stopped short of calling for his impeachment.
Other issues
On the other hand, Kennedy has joined with Court majorities in decisions favoring states' rights and capital punishment and invalidating federal and state affirmative action programs. Despite his views on states' right, he ruled with the majority in the controversial 2000 Bush v. Gore case that ceased continuing recounts in the 2000 presidential election and ensured the victory of President George W. Bush, a move that was considered conservative-leaning by some.[citation needed]
In the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich case, he joined the liberal members of the Court (along with conservative Justice Scalia) in permitting the federal government to prohibit the use of medical marijuana, even in states in which it is legal, thus invalidating a California law that made the use of medical marijuana legal. Several weeks later, in the controversial case of Kelo v. City of New London (2005), he joined the four more liberal justices in supporting the local government's power to take private property for economic development through the use of eminent domain.
Kennedy has been active off of the bench as well, calling for reform of overcrowded American prisons in a speech before the American Bar Association. He spends his summers in Salzburg, Austria, where he teaches international and American law at the University of Salzburg for the McGeorge School of Law international program and often attends the large yearly international judges conference held there. Defending his use of international law, Kennedy told the September 12, 2005 issue of The New Yorker, "Why should world opinion care that the American Administration wants to bring freedom to oppressed peoples? Is that not because there's some underlying common mutual interest, some underlying common shared idea, some underlying common shared aspiration, underlying unified concept of what human dignity means? I think that's what we're trying to tell the rest of the world, anyway."0 -
quote:Originally posted by 11b6r
Well, let's look at the up side (potentially) of this. "Bearing arms" of the "militia". Hmmm- lets see now- last time I looked, the standard weapon of the US Army is a SELECT FIRE 5.56mm rifle...... So the 2nd amendment says I can have one- right? (Hey- I could also win the lottery- not that I really think either one is gonna happen)[:p]
You can have one now. All that's necessary is that you fill out your class 3 forms, have them approved and affixed with tax stamp, to be carried on your person whenever you have our weapon with you. Then it's a simple matter of paying your $20,000 and buying your weapon.
No probleemo.0 -
Well, from the North, I wish you all the best on this case. 0 -
also of interest.... http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=273727 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
25 comments