i will not be giving up my guns regardless.

6/25/2008 7:34:43 PM

oh man I want some Bojangles

6/25/2008 7:41:09 PM

6/25/2008 7:51:12 PM

court is def. conservative enough now for this shit to always pass

6/25/2008 7:54:08 PM

Link plz, because I don't remember where my gun blogs are?

6/25/2008 8:13:24 PM

WWW.DRUDGEREPORT.COM


its some obscure gun blog/ survivalist site

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 8:54 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 8:54:01 PM

Do you have anything from a REAL source?

6/25/2008 9:05:21 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062502712.html?hpid=topnews

6/25/2008 9:08:19 PM

Quote :

"court is def. conservative enough now for this shit to always pass"

The same Court that ruled today that the death penalty for child rapists is unconstitutional.

Just sit down, you don't know what you're talking about.

Besides which, the case on the docket today is about the D.C. handgun ban, and all things being equal, will likely be decided on the narrowest of grounds - i.e., not on the broader issue of the Second Amendment and gun control at large.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 9:13 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 9:11:56 PM

Quote :

" The same Court that ruled that the death penalty for child rapists is unconstitutional. "

Or, in a more accurate statement - they determined that you can only be put to death for murder.

6/25/2008 9:13:14 PM

Fine, fine, I was in a hurry. Yes, the majority determined that capital punishment is only within the bounds of the "cruel and unusual" restriction when applied to murder. The case itself making the determination, however, was in fact over a child rapist, and a law in Louisiana dealing with this very class of felon. Ergo, my statement holds: not some monolithic "conservative" Court.

6/25/2008 9:14:52 PM

The court is very clearly center-right at the moment on most issues. If you can recall, a more 'liberal' supreme court found the death penalty to be unconstitutional at one point.


Executions are known to have been carried out in the following countries in 2007[6]:

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, USA, Vietnam, Yemen.

Most Executions carried out in 2007
Country Number
China 470+
Iran 317+
Saudi Arabia 143+
Pakistan 135+
USA 42
Iraq 33+

(+ Based on publicly available reports. Other sources suggest the real tally in China for example may be as high as 6,000.)

We're up there with the greats.




[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 9:20 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 9:19:57 PM

man...no wonder europe has that "pussy" stereotype

6/25/2008 9:22:00 PM

Quote :

"The court is very clearly center-right at the moment on most issues. If you can recall, a more 'liberal' supreme court found the death penalty to be unconstitutional at one point."

Based upon what reckoning, exactly? Kelo v. New London? Gonzales v. Raich? The hits just keep coming.

My point is not that we're back in the liberal heyday of Warren Burger - it's simply that we don't have a monolithic right-wing Court whose decisions are politically predictable, despite horror stories to the contrary. Anyone who's actually followed the last 5 years of the Court could tell you that.

6/25/2008 9:22:15 PM

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. It's hard to call the court left or right at the moment.

6/25/2008 9:23:42 PM

Well, okay then. Other people seem less convinced.

6/25/2008 9:24:31 PM

My main concern is that it does tilt too far to the right during someone like Bush's term. Whether you like him or not, it's hard to argue that he hasn't tried to expand the executive branch's power more than any other president in recent times. We need a strong centrist court that will keep that power in check, as well as have a basis in reality (and I consider Alito's and Scalia's briefings on the habeus corpus ruling saying 'we're in a war, we'll lose to the turrists if we don't give bush more power' to be the exact opposite of what we need in a court.)

6/25/2008 9:27:37 PM

Quote :

" Just sit down, you don't know what you're talking about. Besides which, the case on the docket today is about the D.C. handgun ban, and all things being equal, will likely be decided on the narrowest of grounds - i.e., not on the broader issue of the Second Amendment and gun control at large."

I actually listened to the arguments live when the case was heard (it was on CNN, a few AM stations, and the intarwebs) and the DC lawyer, Walter E. Dellinger, did what is almost universally considered a piss-poor job of defending the District's case. Even some of the more left leaning judges were shredding him on this case.

Most everyone expects the court to rule in favor of the Second Amendment as an individual right, from the gun community to Sarah Brady. The real question will be how the SCOTUS rules on the scrutiny of review for new and existing laws. Will it be closer to rational basis (does the law make sense for the public good while not infringing on the general right to keep and bear arms) or does it fall under strict scrutiny (is it of compelling interest, narrowly targeted, and the least legally restrictive law possible)?

Of course, the court could swing the other way, who knows, but I don't think they would have taken up this individual case if they didn't have the intent of issuing a much broader ruling.

6/25/2008 9:28:03 PM

I'll be honest with you - despite how the case was argued, I will be greatly surprised if we don't see some extremely narrowly-tailored decision which has little bearing upon future gun control legislation and instead hinges upon the particulars of this case (i.e., it being D.C.).

I'm not saying I think the Court isn't more sympathetic to the individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, but given the nature of Roberts, I strongly believe we're going to see something which strikes down the gun ban but has little lasting effect outside of this case. Stare decisis and whatnot.

6/25/2008 9:35:08 PM

Possibly, but the problem is, there was no precedent for them to go on. The last 2A case heard by the court was back in the 30s. This case wasn't argued with references to former court opinions but, instead, was reaching back to the Founding Fathers and even Blackstone.

I'm not sure how a ruling couldn't be precedent setting, even if it were narrowly tailored.

6/25/2008 9:38:34 PM

I'm guessing one way might be if they hinged it upon D.C.'s lack of legal right to pass such a restriction (i.e., a technicality about the legal status of D.C.). Something like that - pinning it on a minor technical issue rather than a broader, precedent-setting issue. Kind of like today's Exxon ruling which confined itself to maritime law, rather than the broader issue of limits on torts for punitive judgments in general.

It may not happen, but it just seems like the kind of cop-out I've come to expect.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 9:48 PM. Reason : Exxon]

6/25/2008 9:47:47 PM

Yeah, I expect something broader than that, but I agree that we won't get something sweeping that allows 6 year olds to posses CL III firearms.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 9:54 PM. Reason : we'll see.]

6/25/2008 9:54:15 PM

Quote :

"We're up there with the greats. "

I love how Angola and Rwanda are shining examples of human rights, while the US is the same as Suadi Arabia.

6/25/2008 10:01:32 PM

only 42? What a waste, should be higher.

6/25/2008 10:21:35 PM

court's job is to interpret the constitution. They'll have a hard time getting past Amendment #2. I am anticipating a 9 - 0 decision.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 10:37 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 10:37:31 PM

^You would think.

6/25/2008 10:48:15 PM

So when is the ruling supposed to be announced? Thought it was today, but at what time?

6/26/2008 8:33:29 AM

6/26/2008 8:36:02 AM

Breaking News

Quote :

"The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the Washington D.C. ban on handguns."

6/26/2008 10:18:17 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns
woohoo

6/26/2008 10:34:43 AM

least shocking ruling of the year.

6/26/2008 10:42:12 AM

This makes up for the "pedophile rapists can't be executed" ruling yesterday...

6/26/2008 10:48:59 AM

what about the prior-reports-of-domestic-abuse-cannot-be-used-in-a-murder-trial ruling?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-na-giles26-2008jun26,0,7381319.story

Quote :

"The 6-3 decision overturned the murder conviction of a Los Angeles man who shot and killed his girlfriend. Dwayne Giles, the convicted killer, admitted he shot Brenda Avie six times when she came to his house in South Los Angeles on Sept. 29, 2002, but he said he acted in self-defense."

6/26/2008 10:54:45 AM

I can't believe it was 5-4. Do 4 justices really not know how to read the constitution?

6/26/2008 11:04:33 AM

FTW

6/26/2008 11:05:33 AM

4 of the justices believe that you're not the member of a militia

6/26/2008 11:08:31 AM

5 of the justices pwn the other 4. Guess I can CCW when I go to DC next time.

[Edited on June 26, 2008 at 11:09 AM. Reason : ]

6/26/2008 11:09:16 AM

Quote :

"Just sit down, you don't know what you're talking about. "

Made me laugh. gg


Good ruling today. Yesterdays was terrible though.

6/26/2008 11:11:07 AM

Quote :

"I can't believe it was 5-4. Do 4 justices really not know how to read the constitution?"

did you actually listen to the arguments when they happened a month or two ago?
they spent a lot of time parsing the exact wording of the 2nd amendment and comparing it to the other amendments, and the contention was over what "the people" meant (especially since that wording is not in any of the other amendments, which nobody argues apply to individuals) and why a "well regulated militia" was included in the amendment

6/26/2008 11:13:57 AM

good job Supreme Court and good for you, citizens of Washington, DC

Quote :

"Guess I can CCW when I go to DC next time."

doubtful...there are already states like California and New York where handguns are legal, but in general only LEOs are able to get CCWs...I figure DC will be the same way

6/26/2008 11:26:27 AM

Decision is posted here if anyone wants to take a read:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

6/26/2008 11:34:48 AM

Quote :

"Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

Quote :

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

Still reading. This is undeniably precedent setting. It is not, however, revolutionary.

6/26/2008 12:08:42 PM

*phew*

I was worried about this one.

Now, let's get back to the fourth, fifth, sixth and tenth amendments which are in desperate need of defense as well...

6/26/2008 12:42:29 PM

Quote :

"and the contention was over what "the people" meant (especially since that wording is not in any of the other amendments, which nobody argues apply to individuals)"

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but are you saying the phrase "the right of the people" doesn't appear in other amendments? If so, I suggest you reread them again, specifically I and IV.

6/26/2008 12:52:18 PM

^ ok, you're right. However, when listening to some of the arguments on NPR, i know they were still discussing what those words meant.

Even in the 1st and 4th amendments, i could be interpreted that "The People" is referring to a collective right, not an individual right
1st - "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," - obviously a collective right, as it takes more than one person to "assemble"
4th - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect...." - not as clear as the first, but again, could be argued that this is more of a collective right, however it would have to be applied to individuals

6/26/2008 1:17:37 PM

Had the founding fathers only known of the ridiculous attacks of the modern day left, they would have defined every fucking word including a, and, and the.

6/26/2008 1:19:28 PM

and they would have left in the part about abortion too, right?

6/26/2008 1:19:57 PM

nice strawman.



[Edited on June 26, 2008 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2008 1:21:01 PM

Not to be an ass, but how could you possibly interpret those as collective rights? How? Who are the people? They are individuals, not a collectivist mass and there is no interpretation of founding intent which would have implied that they should be treated as such.

6/26/2008 1:21:30 PM

Well the whole defending your home is is best with a handgun is a little far fetched IMO. I keep a bat and giant flashlight near me and I fee just as safe.

However this was a no brain decision by a right leaning court, and for the most part a nation outside of urban areas agree with.

It is a semi-good decision I feel, as long as we don't see they become activist and overturn licensing laws and wait periods to own guns. Also people should have the right to protect themselves against the State if and when the time ever comes.

6/26/2008 1:24:54 PM