Comments on: The 2A Superbowl Kick-Off

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:18:01 +0000

It certainly seems like it

By: PWConservative

PWConservative — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:01:24 +0000

I have the story up.. Apparently we’ve won

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:52:11 +0000

This case will just be the beginning. We’re not going to see the Supreme Court say that all restrictions or regulations on gun ownership are impermissible, but I’m betting they’ll say that outright bans don’t pass muster.

Then, we’ll see more cases over the years as the Court tries to come up with a standard of what is and is not acceptable.

And they still have to deal with the issue of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the States like the rest of the Bill of Rights does. The last time they ruled on that was over 100 years ago, and they said it doesn’t. I’ve got to think that will change.

Wrap-up of the oral argument here:

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/03/18/district-of-columbia-v-heller-gets-its-day-in-court/

By: Advocator

Advocator — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:25:27 +0000

Gawl-lee, MND. I’ll bet you could recognize a Navy issued M-14 quicker than I could pen a rhetorical device.

By: 999

999 — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:58:02 +0000

You know what stand Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer will take.

By: PWConservative

PWConservative — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:53:56 +0000

I Don’t see how the court could not logically and intellectually interpret, that the right to keep and bear arms, means “Possess and Carry firearms” I Also looked up the Current and Old definition’s of “Infringe”
I Found the current interpretation is “Encroach” and the Old interpretations are “Frustrate” “Impede” and “Obstruct”

By: mnd

mnd — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:50:50 +0000

Advocator,

Flame throwers aren’t firearms and aren’t restricted at all.

Machine guns are legal to own provided you pay for a $200 tax stamp.

Anti-tank weapons fall into the category of “destructive device” under the NFA and are subject to the same $200 tax stamp.

All items you list are legally able to be possessed by individuals.

Also, point of clarification of terminology:

A “neighborhood watch” like city, state, and federal government has no “rights”.

Individuals have rights.

Chartered organizations have powers.

An activity that requires some sort of permission is not a right but a privilege.

By: Advocator

Advocator — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:25:39 +0000

I agree with Scott’s and Greg’s take that the Supremes will recognize gun ownership as an individual, vice a collective, right, but will state that the right is not without limitations, e.g., flame throwers, machine guns, and anti-tank weapons most likely will not ever be legally owned by the individual. Neighborhood watches, maybe, but not individuals.

By: JM

JM — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:59:30 +0000

Sorry about the poor spelling. Hard to type with a brace on my wrist.

By: JM

JM — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:58:28 +0000

The antiwar protesters will be in town today and tomorrow, and they have pretty much promised to cause trouble. Today, Tuesday, they are doing to display their banners in front of IRS and Justice. Tomorrow is their big day. Beginning at 6 AM, they plan to block IRS, Justice and other Federal agencies and prevent employees from going to work. My building is ot a traget, but all Constitution Ave entrances will be locked as a precaution. So we will be essentially barricaded in our building, while the so-called pacifists break the law and not allow workers freedom of assembly and the basic liberty of going where they need and wish to go. The fact that they are willing to break that law makes me worry what other laws will be broken on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the pro Second Amendment people are at the Supreme Court today, and no one is expecting any trouble from them at all. Says quite a lot about the right and the left in this country, doesn’t it?