"ALL IN" on the 2nd AMENDMENT???

[A4sForever]

Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it WILL hear a case on whether or not the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could impact the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" more than any other court case in the past 70 years.

The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, states:

“ A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

“ A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ”



Like the old Chinese curse says: ... "May you live in interesting times ..." Oh, and by the way, private ownership of firearms is banned in Red China.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Glad to see this come before the bench. As the article talks about, it's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out in the election next year.

 

[statesman]

I was in the middle of making this post A4's... you beat me!

Don't you have anything better to do than search the interwebs?


But I am very happy to hear that the SCOTUS will be taking the case. DC really screwed themselves.

I just hope that Scalia writes the opinion.

 

[statesman]

Glad to see this come before the bench. As the article talks about, it's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out in the election next year.

On the Republican side it can only help the unappologetic gun supporters (Ron Paul, Huckabee, Hunter etc) It will kill Guliani and McCain as light gets thrown on the gun issue.

For the Democrats they are going to have to some how say they dont support the SCOTUS, which of all the branches has the highest (and significantly higher) approval rating.

 

[A4sForever]

I was in the middle of making this post A4's... you beat me! Don't you have anything better to do than search the interwebs? ....

Pot, meet kettle.

Naaaaah ... not when I'm "working" on the great American novel and taking a coffee break. I have two computers/screens side by side -- one for "work", the other for whatever.

 

[MasterBates]

Here's hoping they make the "right" decision.

If they try to make it so its the lefties dream, aka "Turn them ALL in" unless you are in a militia, this could get really interesting. And not in a good way.

If it goes the way I am pulling for, I see an M-4 with "da switch" in my future. All in good time of course.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

What a fascinating case.

No way will it come down on either side. They will say that a state has a right to limit the type of handguns accessible to the public but that an individual has a right to protect themselves. It won't be cut and dry.

 

[raptor10]

Here's hoping they make the "right" decision.

If they try to make it so its the lefties dream, aka "Turn them ALL in" unless you are in a militia, this could get really interesting. And not in a good way.

If it goes the way I am pulling for, I see an M-4 with "da switch" in my future. All in good time of course.

I'm hoping that it forces Diane Feinstein to "share" her CCL with the rest of her fellow Californians.

 

[phrogpilot73]

What a fascinating case.

No way will it come down on either side. They will say that a state has a right to limit the type of handguns accessible to the public but that an individual has a right to protect themselves. It won't be cut and dry.

Yes it will be cut and dry. If they say that the state has a right to limit the type of handguns, then they've come down on the side of the gun control people. If they say that the state can't limit the type of handguns, then they come down on our side...

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

The case from the 1930s dealt with a bootlegger carrying a sawed off shotgun across state lines; they decided then that it was not the intention of the framers to provide protection for these acts. They will say, this time, that it was the intention of the framers to allow for people to possess firearms as a means of protection; but, there will be a but. Most likely, they will say that individuals possess a right to protect themselves but the states possess the right to protect their constituents. In other words, although this is a highly charged and debated topic, the sides are entirely too polarized for the Court to land on either side. They will find a middle of a road approach that will barely appease people until the next case comes along.

 

[statesman]

The decision is almost already cut and dry. The circuit court issued a very strong opinion. The Supreme Court will most likely either uphold, and write an opinion which pleases gun owners, or overturn, and write an opinion which angers gun owners.


Either way it should be very decisive. The SCOTUS has implied they intend to settle this issue.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Much like they have decisively handled Abortion, the Death Penalty, and Affirmative Action?

 

[HH-60H]

Either way it should be very decisive. The SCOTUS has implied they intend to settle this issue.

How have they implied that? By agreeing to hear the case? They regularly hear cases and then make a ruling on a very, very narrow portion of the case, and in the end it "settles" nothing.

 

[FUPaladin]

Like the old Chinese curse says: ... "May you live in interesting times ..." Oh, and by the way, private ownership of firearms is banned in Red China.

Of course they are, because the CCP wouldn't last one week if all 1.3 billion Chinese had guns. It's the story of every dynasty in Chinese history: corrupt government + armed peasants = dead emperor.

 

[Flash]

How have they implied that? By agreeing to hear the case? They regularly hear cases and then make a ruling on a very, very narrow portion of the case, and in the end it "settles" nothing.

I agree, there are many possibilities out of this case and I think it will be a mixed decision. The plantiffs are not even asking to carry their guns outside their homes, just that they can have loaded/legal guns in their house.

With the court split the way it is right now and Judge Roberts' penchant for narrow decisions that broadly appeals to as much of the court as possible, I would not be suprised by a rather narrow ruling.