OT: Supremes and 2nd Amendment

Ok, guilty before being charged, but this will perk up the ears of a few members here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/washington/13scotus.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

I'm really surprised that both sides are pushing so hard for a hearing. With so much to loose either way, it seems like the best for both sides would be to just continue posturing and saber- rattling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As far as I understand, the way the Supreme Court is stacked right now, they are likely to rule favorably towards gun rights. This is about the only good legacy of the Bush administration that I can think of.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ignoramus23382 wrote:

And the ONLY reason I voted for him, to put potentially pro 2nd Amendment Justices on the SCOTUS.
David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That was the main reason why I voted for him the first time.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There is some very strange stuff surrounding this case (Parker v. District of Columbia, probably will be re-named). Apparently the NRA tried initially to keep it from getting to the Supreme Court by pushing for a repeal of the handgun ban in DC, which would have mooted the case and kept it out of the S.C. Then the NRA turned around and provided an amicus brief to the S.C. advocating that some of the defendants who had been eliminated from the case for reasons of standing be re-instated: a push, in other words, to make this case a big deal at the S.C. level.
It appears that the NRA was concerned that it would be a loser at the S.C. a few years ago, but now thinks it will win. I don't know the story but there are a couple of online references:
http://www.examiner.com/a-653443~Robert_A__Levy__Should_Congress_or_the_courts_decide_D_C__gun_ban_s_fate_.html
http://www.abajournal.com/news/nra_had_high_court_misgivings /
We could know if the S.C. will take the case as early as Tuesday.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've listened to more than a few Justices talking about how they decided various cases. Even now this is a wild card and I would not bet on the individual right being confirmed. I wouldn't bet against it either and 50/50 sucks for odds considering the importance. Free men own arms.
What do I expect is that the SC refuses to hear the case leaving the ruling of the lower court stand. That would give D.C. gun owners relief and leave the SC court running room for the future.
Wes NRA Life
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

We know that Thomas is itching for a case to try; he said as much in some dicta he wrote in an early concurring opinion. I haven't seen much analysis of the others.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think the pro-second crowd thinks that the time is right. It may be; we have two fairly recent appeals court rulings in favor of an individual right, and some heavyweight liberal legal scholars now agree with it. And we know Thomas favors it, Scalia and Roberts probably do, and at least one more probably will tip. I think it's down to one justice and the pro-second crowd must think they're going to get it.
If not now, probably never.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There's a strong semantic case to be made that it is in fact an individual right. The phrase "the right of the people" occurs not only in the Second Amendment, but also in the First ("... peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances") and the Fourth ("... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."). If "the right of the people" designates individual rights in the First and Fourth Amendments, then it does in the Second as well.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:52:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

Wow, the Supremes address the 2nd Amendment? KEWL!!!
Cue Diana Ross, packin' her rhinestone nine and sequined holster:
(but mamma said,) You can't hurry love (POW) No, you just have to wait (BLAM) She said love don't come easy It's a game of give and take (BAMBAMBAM...BAM) ....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So far it's still a "maybe." Most observers are saying "probably." But not today. The Court announced some cases it will hear today and this wasn't among them. The next word will be on Nov. 26th.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.