The Second Amendment Term?

You may also like...

16 Responses

  1. As I said at the time of Parker’s oral argument, this could be “Big, really big.”

  2. David Hardy says:

    I think you’re a bit low on the size of the public that’s interested — I suspect it’s eight rather than seven figures. NRA’s membership alone is at about 3 million, not counting smaller organizations. The number of persons interested an issue far exceeds those who join a group, just as the number of persons interested in civil liberties probably exceeds ACLU membership by a factor of ten to a hundred.

  3. David Hardy says:

    I think you’re a bit low on the size of the public that’s interested — I suspect it’s eight rather than seven figures. NRA’s membership alone is at about 3 million, not counting smaller organizations. The number of persons interested an issue far exceeds those who join a group, just as the number of persons interested in civil liberties probably exceeds ACLU membership by a factor of ten to a hundred.

  4. David Lawson says:

    In my opinion, there is little risk in Parker to gun ownership.

    If SCOTUS holds against Parker, then our judicial avenues are quashed…but face it, the courts haven’t been helping us anyway.

    We would still have recourse legislatively.

    If SCOTUS upholds Parker, then we have a new avenue for RKBA. Challenges in the States would seem likely as well as challenges to HR1022 type bills and maybe even parts of GCA68 or 86 or even NFA.

  5. Peter says:

    The trouble is that the Supreme Court is made up of lawyers.

    Ordinary people will look at the words of the 2ndA and know that “the people” isn’t some government agency like the National Guard. We see the phrase “no law” and reckon that means that Congress should butt out.

    I don’t know what exactly they teach in law school that makes simple English so difficult to understand. Give us twenty years with no lawyers allowed in Congress, or anywhere else is a decision making role in government and the Country could last another two hundred plus years.

  6. ThomasD says:

    Q:

    I don’t know what exactly they teach in law school that makes simple English so difficult to understand.

    A: Pretty much everything.

  7. Paul says:

    Assuming the Court takes the case, we might be tempted to expect another 4-4 right/left split with Justice Kennedy casting the deciding vote. (In that event, gun owners should worry.) But in this case, I have my doubts.

    From years of Court watching, I’ve noticed that on novel questions Justice Souter can be something of an originalist. (See, for example, Atwater v. Lago Vista, holding that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit arrest for a fine-only offense, because, inter alia, our English legal heritage does not countenance such a prohibition.)

    If I’m right, then this case might well be decided 5-4, but not on the usual lineup.

  8. RS says:

    Let’s see… “the people” in all of the other Amendments refers to the individual. How can it refer to anything else in only the 2nd? Our forefathers DID NOT want all of the power with the FED or State governments because they were paranoid about governmental power (for good reason). They knew that if individuals wielded some of the power (eg guns) then things would be fair. Now why would they go and pen that only the governments could have or control guns? It makes NO sense and the only logical interpretation is to allow individuals the RKBA.

    Imagine the fallout if the SCOTUS tells the American people they can’t own guns anymore…. It’ll make the LA riots look like horseplay.

  9. Henry Bowman says:

    Imagine the fallout if the SCOTUS tells the American people they can’t own guns anymore.

    Imagine the fallout of the SCOTUS tells the American people that the government can steal their home. Oh, wait…

  10. Curtis41 says:

    I was under the impression that the idea of to have and bear arms preceded the U.S. Constitution and the framers of the Constitution were of the mind to guarantee this in fact. Moreover, this came before the mostly confirming statements in various state constitutions. The reasoning given by D.C. to keep the 30-year ban on handguns escapes me. The District is NOT safer from crime during the period after the ban was imposed, quite the opposite. Data gathered from a variety of different sources by the National Academy of Sciences found basically that gun control, the restriction of having and bearing arms, has NOT had an effect in reducing crime. Apparently, these idiots in the District presenting this case are unaware that the criminals are the ones that have the guns for the most part, and THEY are committing the crimes. What the ban did, is just like New Orleans and Nagin, et al., to deny law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves in a natural disaster. It was unreasonable to expect the police, sheriff and national guard to keep order in all places at all times. During horrible times like that, people are responsible for their own safety and survival. I am particularly surprised at the anti-gun zealots, many of whom have gun carry permits, they KNOW the risks to their person, and they are both cowards and hypocrites for denying others the same capability. Criminals just love to know that most people are unarmed. It is my view that we have at least TWO enemies. The criminals who generally do not stand in line to get a carry permit and a legal handgun, and the stupid zealots who are trying to take our firearms away. Our country has a long history of hunting, shooting sports and competition and self-defense. I do not know many people willing to give up their ability to defend themselves and family members in their own home. Keeping NO firearm, or having to have a trigger lock on the firearm and ammunition separate from the firearm just will not convince a criminal to leave your home. IF you can find a vertebrate judge, you can give a person 10 years or more alone for commission of a crime with a firearm. The apparent solution for many is take all the firearms away from law-abiding citizens and to flood our nation with more restrictive laws that are not being enforced in the first place. Remember that most anti-gun folks are ultimately for federal registration, confiscation and destruction, no more, no less. The republic should not be asked to do this, now, or ever. The framers of the Constitution realized this, apparently a number of left wingers are not equally convinced.

  11. DoesNotMatter says:

    So if I understand that right, if SCOTUS decides to uphold the DC law and is not careful with the wording , all other amendements empowering individual right’s are only so much dust and evaporate as soon as the goverment blows at them ?

  12. DocWatson says:

    Were the court to decide in favor of the State, mass confiscation would be the result and we would have no recourse but to meekly obey the jack-booted thugs or to revolt as the framers of the Constitution intended.

  13. Brett Bellmore says:

    “This might lead the Court to deny certiorari, as it has done in nearly all Second Amendment cases for the past sixty-odd years.”

    “Nearly”? It’s my understanding that, since Miller, the Court has refused certiori, without comment, to every last case, without any exception AT ALL, which could fairly be described as “Second amendment” cases. Lopez, for instance, was a commerce clause case.

  14. thomass says:

    Posted by: Peter at July 19, 2007 06:48 PM

    “I don’t know what exactly they teach in law school that makes simple English so difficult to understand.”

    Progressive mumbo jumbo….

  15. Joanne Mondesir says:

    In my own personal opinion, the right to bear firearms could be negative and positive. A lot of young adults these days are bying firearms without a gun license.

    No one can stop them simply because by LAW they are in title to own a gun. That discussion will go on and on because there is no good solution about possessing a firearms…

  16. Hi

    I am going to bookmark ???r site wh??h gives me a concise instructions and trade options to do business in a
    stockmarkit and th?? site ?l?? help me by giving full information a propos forex trading through wh??h it ??
    very simple f?r me to select the stocks..

    Thanks J