Supreme Court decision next week

imported post

I subscribe to a newsletter from the Brady Bunch so I can keep up to date with how they're trying to fight gun laws. Just today I got an email reminding me they'll be in court fighting to reverse the Appelate Court's decision and uphold the gun ban in Washington DC.

I won't bore you with the entire contents of their email, but wanted to share an interesting point of view:

I always enjoy a good debate and enjoy hearing well-founded arguments against my own point of view. But the notion conveyed here -- the Constitution does not protect you from laws taking away your right to bear arms, regardless of the "benefits" -- this is not a reasonable argument! The constitution is designed to PROTECT me from abusive laws. Wasn't this country founded by men seeking relief from the unreasonable laws of mother England (among other reasons)? The Constitution was written to prevent this new country from going down the same path.

If the Constitution doesn't protect my 2A rights, and instead allows state government, local goverment, even federal government, to enact laws taking away my guns......when does the Constitution stop protecting my 1A rights? If the government can impose restrictions on what I am allowed to say, under the guise of "protecting the public", then why even have a Constitution? Why have a federal government if states are free to tear the country apart by ignoring its laws?

Whether I am biased on the 2A matter is irrelevant....if the Supreme Court finds against 2A, losing your guns is the last thing you have to worry about.

imported post

I joined the Navy in 1984 to fight the Russians/Communists because they were, or so I thought, the greatest threat to America.

Boy was I wrong. IMHO,the Brady Center, theirleaders, followers, supporters and alltheir gun-controlling ilk are the most vile and disgusting bunch of power hungry anti-Americans this country has ever seen. Theytrample on the Constitution every chance they get andtheir picture of Americaisthe closest thing to Marksism this country has ever.I believe with my very heart and soul that they are the greatest threat to America this nation has ever known. They are subverting from within and would have every American bowing down to government. They are theterrorists within.

They should be the declared enemy of every red-blooded American that has ever bothered to read a history book.

imported post

Would it be considered tasteless to suggest that we throw Kalifornia in there, as well? Specifically the people who think owning an "evil black rifle" is abhorrent. Disregard the fact that if I asked them to ban 500 models of cars that I would consider to be 'evil', or not acceptable in some way, they would say thats some violation of their rights. Brilliant! Nevermind the fact that careless idiots in cars kill more people in Kali and in the country than guns do. :banghead:

I dont see where these people get off on calling a ban on any gun constitutional. I mean, it should be my choice whether I want 16 bullets in 1 clip, or 2 clips with 8 bullets each...shouldnt it? We wont even go into Kali Dept. of 'Justice', or the countless other problems...

IMHO, thats about as bogus as telling me I can only drink 2 sodas a day. Sure, more than 2 a day would cost more money, and perhaps pose a risk to my health in the long term, but damnit if I want to drink more than 2 sodas a day, isnt it my right and choice to drink that 'impractical' 3rd soda?!:banghead: Not to mention its tasty.

imported post

Its hard to tell when the Supreme Court decision will come. But it does look somewhat encouraging.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080318/D8VG2PR00.html

www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

imported post

I read the transcript (all 110 pages, and I'm a slow reader!) and thought it also seemed promising. Some obviously very pro-gun justices.

But it also prompted me to read other transcripts and compare to the actual opinions for other cases, and the justices are great at playing devil's advocate regardless of their position or interpretation, so it's hard to tell just from the transcript.

It looks like it takes several months to get a decision, but I'm anxiously anticipating a favorable opinion.

imported post

I'm still holding my breath. Having sat through many court cases where the judge(s) spoke promising throughout the discussion phase only to rule exactly opposite, I know that the tone can too often be deceiving. I hold little trust in our courts anymore and believe it only when I see it come to pass. I hope and prey that our high court justices do indeed prove me wrong this time,but until they do I won't rest easy.

Doc

imported post

I think that they will rule that it is our American right to own guns, but they will stop there. I doubt that they will overturn the specific law on the books that was challenged in this case (the DC handgun ban).

I think the Supreme court no longer WANTS to set precedent on anything anymore.

imported post

They will either affirm the decision of the lower court, which found the DC law unconstitutional, or overturn the decision. Whether affirming it means DC has to repeal the law, I do not know. But I do believe that if anyone were arrested and had their property seized for violation of that "law", the courts would immediately dismiss it based upon the SCOTUS ruling.

Now, on the other hand, with 55 senators, 250 representatives, and 32 states filing amicus briefs in support of the respondent (Heller, the Pro-gun guy), I believe that even if SCOTUS overturned the decision of the lower court and upheld the DC law, there would be sufficient momentum to start Article 5 talks, which says an amendment can be made to the constitution by convention, when 2/3 of both houses, or 2/3 of the several states (34) agree to hold a convention. Then 3/4 of the states must ratify such an amendment (38). Since 39 states have "shall issue" CCW permit laws, there might be just enough state support to change the 2nd amendment once and for all to clearly reflect the desires of the people instead of leaving it ambiguously open to interpretation.

Anyway, now I'm dreaming. I'd rather just cross my fingers and hope for a favorable opinion.