Keep and Bear Those Arms
By Erick Posted in 2nd Amendment | Breaking News | Law | Right To Bear Arms | Supreme Court — Comments (139) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
5 to 4 decision. Scalia writes it for the majority.
Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Note: Though Senator Obama is today running ferociously away from his statement of last year that he supported the District of Columbia's gun ban, *all* of the Supreme Court Justices that Obama has said he respected voted against the individual right to keep and bear arms.
« Stand Up And Applaud — Comments (13) | All hail the steadfastness of the Constitutional Law Scholar! [Updated. Bumped.] — Comments (18) »
Keep and Bear Those Arms 139 Comments (0 topical, 139 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I hope it doesn't take too long to translate the bulk into English from lawyer, though the first page or two (all I've got time to read right now, anyway) seem clear enough.
Doesn't go as far as I'd like, looks like it might go farther than I expected.
Good, good news.
--
This too shall pass.
This in my opinion is one of the great decisions of all times. I personally like how they concluded baring arms did not include the right to carry military style arms. This means you don't have the right to a Tank but have the right to a hand gun.
This decision allows the government to limit the type of weapons but not all weapons. So, Automatic weapons can still be out lawed, but not your standard six shooter.
that you don't have the right to an "assault weapon". What constitutes a 'military style' weapon? Is a rifle with a pistol grip a military weapon? A foregrip? A detachable box magazine, folding stock or short barrel (how short?)?
Is a semi-automatic rifle or pistol military style? Does selective (i.e. burst or automatic) fire constitute a military weapon?
Does chambering matter? Some countries already restrict civilian ownership of any pistol chambered for a cartridge in use by military or police forces (like, say, 9x19Para, .38Spl, .45ACP, .40S&W, .357SIG, .357 Magnum, and so on). Are those military weapons?
The US military relied on single-action revolvers and bolt-action rifles through the end of the 19th century, I think. Are those military weapons?
I know that there are common sense answers to those questions, but they're not necessarily applied now and they won't necessarily be applied just because Heller was upheld.
--
This too shall pass.
In Mexico, which has an amendment to their constitution that is similar to our 2nd, an ordinary .375 revolver is considered a military weapon.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
The issue is what can be considered a military weapon, not what weapons were in existence back in the 18th century. I don't see much of a limitation there. The military uses rifles, shotguns, and handguns... I don't see why all these couldn't be considered military weapons at some point. The other test seems to be whether they are banned in enough jurisdictions. If DC were joined by 40 states that also banned handguns back in 76, it sounds like we'd have an evolving national consensus that these weapons are prohibited and the handgun ban would be OK. I mean they wouldn't be in common use any more if enough jurisdictions banned them, right? The decision was better than I expected after the DP case yesterday, but it sure leaves a lot to be desired.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Scalia states pretty explicitly that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and possess weapons "in common use" now, instead of just those available at the time the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified. This is convenient, given that state of the art long guns in 1789 were only starting to have rifled barrels and were muzzle-loaded.
The concern is that Scalia says that the 2nd does not protect ownership of 'military style' weapons. My own reading is pretty shallow, so perhaps he made a concrete definition of 'military style' later on, but I can see many different ways to construe such a phrase, and not all of them focus on cosmetic matters or select-fire capability.
--
This too shall pass.
in the American Revolution. Type "Ferguson Rifle" into a search engine to learn about it. Had the British realized the significance of this new weapon, equipped all their units, and adjusted their tactics accordingly, we would all be singing "God Save the Queen" -- and living under the UK's nationwide gun ban.
Charlie Hall
during the struggle against Napoleon. It would have come in quite handy in places like Spain with all the Guerrilla warfare.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I had never heard of it. Nice to learn something today.
--
This too shall pass.
Really? And just what do you think the founding fathers thought of those *CANNON* mounted on privately owned merchant vessels?
The opposing four justices included at least one imbecile unable (or unwilling) to do basic research into the Founding Father's views on firearms and self-defense.
This decision is a start. No more, no less.
A hallmark of a civilized society is that it is safe to be unpopular.
Up until the Civil War, most wheeled artillery was either privately owned or owned by militia groups that bought them through subscription on behalf of the group or a town or city. It was something of a status symbol for a town to have its own artillery unit, especially in The South.
Even today, if you have $50K or so laying around, you can have your own 12# "Napoleon" smoothbore cannon and caisson with tack for the horses. The horses are additional. When you see a CW movie like "Gettysburg" or "Gods and Generals," all the artillery you see in use is privately owned by either re-enactor groups or individuals. Bring money!
In Vino Veritas
The perpetual butt of tiresome Hollywood jokes until somebody wants to make a good war movie or documentary.
some re-enactors ARE tiresome; waaay too into it, constant ranking and nitpicking, but all in all great people in my experience. We don't have a WBTS unit here in Alaska, but do have a lot of people into Cowboy Action Shooting. I've shown up a few times in a Richmond Type III (of course, no visible machine stitching), my P1853 and full Enfield accouterment, etc. It's basically the way my ancestors in Hill's Corps would have been uniformed and accoutered in the Pennsylvania Campaign of '63. I'm not much on the "Ragged Rebel" myth, so I keep it all pretty spit and polish. In fact, Hill's Corps had new uniforms and shoes for the Campaign. It's kind of fun to make smoke and noise with the cowboys, but black powder is so hard to get here that we're very sparing with it and use Pyrodex mostly. I really miss the smell of black powder, but the Pyrodex at least allows us to shoot. I practiced endlessly until I could "load and fire in nine times" and get off three aimed rounds a minute. Of course, nobody was shooting at me and I was standing still. I have the upmost admiration for the men of that day who could actually do that on the move and with people shooting at them. Of course, they drilled eight or ten hours a day when not on campaign.
There's a Georgia unit in CA and I had a chance to go to the 140th Gettysburg with them. I was flattered but coming from 50 degree Juneau to 90 degree Pennsylvania, wearing a wool uniform, carrying a ten pound musket and all the accouterment, and running up that hill made me conclude that my death in battle might be altogether too realistic.
In Vino Veritas
Closest I can come is High School marching band in the Disney World parade in July.
And Moe, I don't even want to comtemplate wearing chain mail or plate armor down South in the Summer. Must have been murder on the Conquistadors.
...being a medieval reenactor myself*; but never mind. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
*And if you ever want to meet hardcore liberal 2nd Amendment absolutists, go to an SCA event. The SCAdians who aren't also firearms enthusiasts are pretty much down with the notion that once the guns are legislated away, the broadswords, axes and recurve bows are next.
my cold, dead fingers off my trebuchet:D
Now the question comes:
Will this result in the base saying "See how important non-awful judges are?" or will this result in the base saying "Whew! Now we can go back to sleep!"?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I was hoping for a 6-3. I had fantasies of a 7-2.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
What the heck is wrong with Souter?
I guess 80 mayors in America are more important to him than 80 million gun owners. Everyone knows that a mayor is a million times more important than any little person, after all.
That's also the Democrat theory behind Super Delegates, I believe.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Man. *THAT* would have gotten everybody in a tizzy, I tell you what.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The answer is clear: Bill Clinton did not nominate a Judge as liberal as Souter. Souter has absolutely no redeeming value (or decision) on record. Occasionally Breyer and/or Stevens will join in an opinion albeit with obvious discomfort and join the conservatives on the Court, but Souter? NEVER! He and Ginsburg are far and away the 2 most left-wing members of the Court. I guess Poppy should not have taken Warren Rudman and John Sununu's recommendation on an obscure homosexual NH supreme court judge? We must hold McCain's feet to the fire here, if he is elected President no "stealth" candidates for the SCOUTS out of fear of the Senate Judiciary committee, keep sending legitimate conservative nominees to the committee.
The answer is clear: Bill Clinton did not nominate a Judge as liberal as Souter. Souter has absolutely no redeeming value (or decision) on record. Occasionally Breyer and/or Stevens will join in an opinion albeit with obvious discomfort and join the conservatives on the Court, but Souter? NEVER! He and Ginsburg are far and away the 2 most left-wing members of the Court. I guess Poppy should not have taken Warren Rudman and John Sununu's recommendation on an obscure homosexual NH supreme court judge? We must hold McCain's feet to the fire here, if he is elected President no "stealth" candidates for the SCOUTS out of fear of the Senate Judiciary committee, keep sending legitimate conservative nominees to the committee.
ameliorate the stale tired mocking mojo from birds...
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Guess what: 9-0, 8-1, 7-2, 6-3, 5-4, (and most 4-1-4) losses are, losses. This is a 5-4 win for a fundamental right. Some people just can't be happy for 2 seconds and you people make me sick, unless you are a character actor in film for comic relief.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Read the dissent and celebrate, too. It may be the lamest I've ever encountered.
I honked my horn the second it came out! We win, they lose, that is what matters! And if someone wants to debate personal nukes on this day, just go join the Demonrat party and get it over with. And to those who supported the Bush Administrations interference, I am sure you will be thin on the ground today. We win, they lose, next :)
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
I resisted the urge to run around the office cheering.
I'm pretty sure my boss wouldn't appreciate that.
I'm not going to get into it, but let's just say that there is still a "June is Gay Pride Month!" poster up in the breakroom.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
heat in their bedrooms too!
Scalia: diverse, tolerant!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
I'm not claiming that conservativism is anti-homosexual. I am mearly suggesting that I seem to work for a rather liberal company.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
on the poster with my comment!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Heh.
No, that's ok. I need a paycheck to pay for my schooling. (I don't qualify for grants or scholarships.... any groups wanting to give money to white people because they're white are met with cries of "Racist!" even though people celebrate groups wanting to give money to african americans because they're black. Same applies to males vs. females. Heck, when I was in college to be a youth pastor, I found a grant for a homosexual to get a degree in youth ministry. Just no way to win for the white, straight, conservative christian gun nut male.)----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Being a pessimist by nature I thought "good, they made the right decision, now what does that mean?"
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
...that there are a lot of us from the other side of the political divide who applaud this decision as well. There's a couple of great debates already going on over at Kos over this.
Sincerely,
A Second Amendment Loving Democrat
on this issue. I was surprised by the moderation, not a whole lot of outrage. I figured it is just coverage for Obama's backside. One scary post did catch my attention. Paraphrasing "who determines if these law abiding gun owning citizens will remain law abiding?" Well, no one Mr. Kossack. Can we at least allow them to commit a crime before we step on their 2nd amendment rights?
What the hell is going on out here? - Vince Lombardi
some liberals actually believe in gun rights. Another, larger group, has just given up on the issue since it cost them so much at the polls for decades. And there remains the hoplophobes that will always be a large if not always dominant group in the Democrat Party.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
and it was right twice a day. I must admit I thought this one was going down the tubes after the last two major Opinions that came down.
Thanks for the post. I have been busy moving and in a new job so I haven't been able to post of late.
Rev. Dn. +Panagiotis (Robert) Hanley
Respond to Email: skycop150@yahoo.com
I find it most troubling that the decision was such a close-run thing. I would have bet 6-3 or even 7-2.
The fundamental right of an individual to defend himself by whatever means required belongs with, and springs directly from the individual, the cornerstone of civilization. Police, militias and soldiers are merely specialized defenders, drawn directly from the citizen body for the sole purpose of protecting individuals, their communities, and the country-in-whole, respectively. Period. How much more clear could it be, even if the Amendment was written in 18th Century legalese?
The D.C gun ban was from day one a flagrant violation of the Second Amendment. It should have never become law.
Those four judges must be taken to task for this decision. They have now lost all credibility with me. They came dangerously close to repealing the Second Amendment by fiat, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Don't believe it's possible for the Consitution to be so easily torn asunder? Consider Kelo v. New London, and the violation of the individual's right to retain private property.
Now you have my understanding of why McCain should be the next President of the United States, especially considering Obama's admiration of the same four judges that tried to destroy the very same Constitution they swore to uphold.
Thus Spake Sam
and it was right twice a day. I must admit I thought this one was going down the tubes after the last two major Opinions that came down.
Thanks for the post. I have been busy moving and in a new job so I haven't been able to post of late.
Rev. Dn. +Panagiotis (Robert) Hanley
Respond to Email: skycop150@yahoo.com
and it was right twice a day. I must admit I thought this one was going down the tubes after the last two major Opinions that came down.
Thanks for the post. I have been busy moving and in a new job so I haven't been able to post of late.
Rev. Dn. +Panagiotis (Robert) Hanley
Respond to Email: skycop150@yahoo.com
There is some very fine logic here but some of it feels like they were tiptoeing around the full automatic weapon discussion.
As I was reading along, it was very clear they were building a good case for "people need arms to defend themselves from many threats including Federal tyranny".
About half way, they started with "But wait! We don't mean you can have weapons which could REALLY stand up to Federal tyranny. I mean, they ARE limits!"
The "arms in common use" argument is very clear to me as saying civilians should be familiar with the firearms in current use by the military forces.
As a citizen you have a responsibility to be ready to join an organized military action in a time of crisis. This military could be the Federal armed forces, local militias, or other lawful agencies.
The only way to you to meet the requirements (as defined in this brief) would be if you have access to an entire class of small arms which are currently banned.
Please understand that devices such as tanks, artillery, nuclear weapons, and the like are not "small arms" and are also not in common use.
And thank God for George Bush who if it's judged in the end having done nothing else in 8 years in office he gave us Roberts and Alito... and a fighting chance in the SCOTUS
A fine, fine day!
Under Held, point 2. (Page 2 of the PDF)
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.
Yeah.... see, I don't see carring a firearm in a government building or in a school (provided one has a concealed carry permit) as akin to a felon owning a gun. I find that to be a false comparison, but I also find it to say "Yes, you may own and carry a gun, because it was intended that you be able to do it to defend yourself from tyranny.... you just can't do it on government land." Well, that is where the tyranny would be....
Even on a self-defense level. Those who would do evil don't care that you can't carry there. That is just cause to be able to carry there.
And, I'm also not a huge fan of "and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." (Page 6 of the pdf). . .. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say WHERE one should be allowed to keep and bear, just that one has the right to both keep and bear.
On page 13-14 of the PDF, they define 'bear' as to have, carry, hold on your person. Once again, there is no requirement in the 2nd Amendment as to WHERE one can bear, just that one can.
If the point of the 2nd Amendment is that we ought to be allowed to keep and bear as a protection from a tyrannical government disarming us, why should we hold the idea that the government can tell us where and how to carry? That seems to be the precursor (if not just an act of) disarming.
They reference the First Amendment as having boundaries, as does the Second (page 25 of the pdf). And I agree.... A person ought not have a nuclear weapon or missile launcher with them.... but a pistol or shotgun ought to be carried anywhere (one could make a case for a rifle not being practical in close quarters combat as a shotgun or pistol might, but I wouldn't be opposed to rifles either, carried on a daily basis)
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
the government people in the gun-free zone have to be confronted.
Do like the taste of your food? Can you not get thru a day of what should be total joy without finding some mite to toss cold water on?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Oh, I have quite a bit of joy over this decision.
That doesn't mean I ought not also point out where we need to focus on our next step in taking back the 2nd Amendment as it was intended.
We are in a war here. While we stop to cheer for each won battle, we cannot lose sight of our goal and should always be pressing for the next step until we reach it.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Post Office with a holstered gun on your side; then go other govt building in the same get-up:
courthouse
courtrooms
White House
see my point
and scalia's
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
That's kind of my point GC....
a madman runs in there and shoots the place up, but I'm supposed to believe that I and my firearm are safer if I am in the post office totally unarmed while my firearm is in my car where it can be stolen?
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
I also point you towards the Suzanne Hupp story.
The only safe place for firearms is on my person. I am safest when I have access to my firearms, no matter my locale.
That I own or wish to carry firearms does not make me dangerous to anyone except someone who would seek to mug/murder/rape me or those I am with.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
The government is often treated differently in different situations. When it acts within the market it is not entitled to the same immunities from suit that it does when it acts as the sovereign.
Why should it be impermissible for the government to say it doesn't want guns on its land when you could prohibit people from coming in your house with guns on their belts? I would guess that your employer could tell you that guns aren't allowed in the office, whether or not you have a permit or license for one.
There may not be any wisdom in actually having "gun-free" government buildings. But I don't know that I'm willing to elevate the policy of allowing you to have a concealed weapon at the Capitol to constitutional mandate. Elect officials who will enact such policies and let's hash out whether "gun-free" zones are good or bad policy.
Oh, Gun Free Zones are legal, but there is no 'hashing out' . . . they are always bad decisions.
There has NEVER been an attacker that said "Oh, wait, this is a gun free zone, I guess I'll go somewhere else to shoot people."
In fact, some even suggest that the idea of an unarmed crowd is appealing to someone who would go and shoot up the place.
As a matter of government, it should have less rights to exclusion than I as a private citizen because the Government is not a citizen, it is made up of "We, the people" . . . All government structures ought to be considered public places as the public makes up the government.
Now, one could make the case that it is an issue of National Security (or State Security) that we all be disarmed in government buildings. I can understand their point, and could agree with it for the cases of the Capital or Congress (be it federal or state).... but there is no realistic reason why I ought not be allowed to carry at the DMV.
If I am someone who would stick up the DMV, I'm going to bring a gun whether I'm allowed to or not.
Another example is the state fair. I'm allowed to carry at my state fair, but I'm not allowed to go into any structure anywhere on the grounds, as they are state-owned buildings (which is where everything but some venders are). Given the number of robberies and attacks that happen at state fairs, it is stupid to suggest that . . . for my safety . . . I ought to not have a firearm with me when I go to the fair.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Yes, and by the traditions of the political system we have we use majoritarianism to decide what is best. My point was - gun-free zones are a policy matter, not a constitutional matter. The solution to bad policy is to elect people who will change the policy and to convince a majority of the public to favor your preferred policy.
"We the people..." means precisely nothing. Within "the people" you can supporters for every conceivable policy option on a given subject. Which "people" get to decide what policy is actually implemented? We use representative democracy to do that - so go find candidates who will get rid of the "gun-free school zone" laws, who will allow concealed carry permits, who will let you go to court with a gun in your pocket. I'm all for it. But it is not the SCOTUS's job to prohibit foolish policy absent a clear constitutional requirement that it do so (and in fact, in other areas the folks on this site, along with the conservatives on the Court disparage the idea that judges should overturn foolish policy simply because it is foolish).
My point was that the 2nd Amendment does not require a reading that all guns are permitted to all people at all times and in all places. And I don't believe it was written in 1789 to mean that either. Certainly some guns, some people, some times, and some places, are guaranteed by the text, but I don't see that the federal courthouse is one of them. And so, some of the decisions about which guns, and which people, and at which times and in which places are going to have to be made by the elected branches subject to the political influences that act upon them.
My point was that the 2nd Amendment does not require a reading that all guns are permitted to all people at all times and in all places.
Please cite the section of the Constitution that says that the Second Amendment applies, except if you're going to the State Fair.
Thanks.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
The 2nd Amendment dodged a bullet, but its future is extremely precarious
This was a 5-4 decision, with Kennedy swinging on the side of individual rights.
The problem that may well arise is the same as with capital punishment - the court has allowed the death penalty, but has cirucmscribed it very tightly along "evolving consensus" grounds, etc. so as to make outright banning quite possible anytime 5 justices decide it's time to do so, since Kennedy has "shouted" by recent decisions that the Constitution means what 5 judges means it does, without any historical moorings.
Similarly, we're going to have many cases coming up the line as the courts try to decide what is "reasonable" restrictions on firearms, and Kennedy could very easily swing back and support all sorts of restrictions that would allow effective banning in any useful context on the grounds of "evolving consensus".
This is where court appointments are vital - if one more liberal judge takes a seat, then kiss the 2nd Amendment good-bye.
Similarly, if we get one more conservative seat, then Kennedy is no longer in charge.
It's good that the court held to an "individual rights" reading of the 2nd Amendment, but a one-seat shift will lead to reversal, mark-my-words.
Keep that in mind when considering the consequents of our election this November.
don't leave the house
don't drop bananas
smile
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
The next two fights are on incorporation and the standard of review. Both were mentioned in footnotes but it didn't seem that there was resolution on these issues. The majority rejected a rational basis review, but as long as Kennedy is the fifth vote, I am not taking anything for granted. I could see them adopting a heightened intermediate standard which would probably be fine, though strict scrutiny would be preferable.
Incorporation should be a given, but as long as Kennedy is around, who the heck knows.
While Scalia wrote the opinion, many of these questions we ask are probably directly the result of winning Kennedy's vote. Do you think Scalia was really looking to leave open the question of the standard of review? Did Clarence Thomas want to open the door for a parade of litigation over what exactly is "military-style" firearms, or what is "reasonable" in the restriction department?
My guess is that all these points that were left vague and wide open for later interpretation were the cost of insuring that Scalia was writing a majority opinion rather than a plurality opinion.
What we got is 5-4 and Scalia gave us the clearest exposition of what those 5 justices agreed on as we could hope to get. Any "clearer" and I would guess that Scalia would have been looking at a 5-4 decision striking the DC ban but Scalia would have written for 4 justices and Kennedy would have written for himself and that opinion (as incoherent as it probably would have been) would have wound up as the "controlling opinion" because it would be as far as the 5th vote was willing to go. We wouldn't have had a majority opinion and we would still have had a parade of litigation to come to clarify where exactly Kennedy's limits are.
...and so glad that they are going on summer recess. At least they can't screw up anything else while their not in session. I really cannot believe that such a decision has to be so close and so unpredictable.
to poop on them
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
We won a narrowly-argued case against a weak counter-argument on narrow grounds with a narrow margin. It's good news, but somewhat tempered.
It does underscore the need to get McCain in the White House this fall for judicial appointments.
--
This too shall pass.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
As an software engineer, I don't get that excited about Supreme Court decisions. That is a different perspective on why people go into lawyering, though.
--
This too shall pass.
You don't think he would nominate any judges that his buddies Kennedy and Leahy didn't approve of, do you? If you do, you are naive.
But what's at issue is less the sort of judge that McCain would appoint (we can assume that such a justice would probably be broadly conservative, but not necessarily an originalist), but more the sort that Obama would appoint.
Are you really prepared to argue that Obama would appoint more conservative judges than McCain?
No, but if we're discussing the Conservative nature of McCain, could we PLEASE start limiting the comparisons to people who aren't marxists? Maybe compare McCain to .. . well. . .. other Republicans?
"Here Lance, eat this meat."
"No, that meat is rotting."
"No it isn't! Don't question if this meat is rotting, I mean, look at THAT meat over there! It has maggots crawling in it!"
The horrid nature of Obama shouldn't be used to determine if McCain is going to do something Conservative.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Given the option, I'd put zombie Calvin Coolidge in the Oval Office. He was an excellent conservative President when alive. As a zombie, there'd be a credible argument that he was not the same person as when he served two terms in the first part of the 20th century, too. Because he'd be (un)dead, health concerns surrounding his age can be easily brushed aside, and there's no doubt that he'd strike terror in the hearts of our nation's enemies.
But, Zombie Coolidge and Robot Nixon aren't running, so my choices are people who can't win the election at all, John McCain, and Barack Obama. Since the election will be close, I don't find a protest vote in the general election to be conscionable, which leaves me only with a choice of John McCain and Barack Obama.
I realize that 'least bad' is not an enthusing choice, but if that's the choice, it does us little good to spend the summer beating up McCain on things where he is at least likely to acceptable.
--
This too shall pass.
Oh, I know WHY it is being done, I am just tired of it being done now.
Such things should have been done before the primary, but instead we were told to vote for McCain (after Rudy dropped out) because he was the 'best choice'
Only now that he is the ONLY choice, are people worried about whether or not he would do a good job.
Some of us did the comparisons back when it would have made a difference, but we were told that we hated NY people if we didn't like Rudy, then told that we're just too 'small tent' if we didn't like McCain.
Now it is too late, so to try and salvage something, McCain is compared to Obama so that he may be called a conservative.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Thompson wasn't on the ballot here.
I'm really not suggesting that you or I or anyone should vote for McCain with a smile on their face and a bounce in the step on the way to the voting booth, but we're stuck with him, like it or not. Principle lost, so we'll have to make do with pragmatism.
--
This too shall pass.
By the time I got to vote, the only people left were Huckabee, Romney and McCain.
Yeah... the people really got to decide this one.
Principle didn't lose. Principle was kicked out.
Principle only looses when we choose to abandon it to get a win.
I wholly agree that McCain is better than Obama. But then again, Bill Clinton is better than Obama. I wouldn't vote for him.
Robert Byrd is better than Obama. I wouldn't vote for him. Nancy Pelosi is better than Obama, I wouldn't vote for her.
Do you get my point?
There comes a time where there MUST be a line drawn in the sand, or in the next election, we'll be expected to move even further to the left to appease.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
There is always a better choice and I will always vote for that better choice. It is foolish to sit out because that choice is not good enough.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Who is sitting out?
Not voting for who YOU want me to vote for is not 'sitting out'
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Nope. Not voting is sitting out.
Voting, no matter who for, is not sitting out.
The point of voting is not "Vote for the winner!" but it is "Vote for who will do the best job!"
Yes, this means that you may not be voting for the one that wins, but if you only care about picking a winner, stick to American Idol.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
If I were to rate each candidate based on how well they'd do the job, if they were to get elected, and multiply that by the chance of their actually winning the election, I'd get a weighted value representing which candidate has best chance of best fulfilling my desires for President.
Supposing McCain were a 5, Obama a 1 (being charitable) and Bob Barr an 8 (being very charitable, as I don't know much about him). McCain and Obama probably have a 50-50 chance of winning. Barr's got a 0 chance, it just won't happen. As a result, McCain scores 250, Obama scores 50, and Barr gets a big goose egg.
Then, I go vote for who scores highest.
The primary is the time for pie-in-the-sky idealism, and I will happily vote for the best candidate available in the primary, even if they have zero chance of winning the nomination. I'm not going to use the same process in the general election, because I think not being presided over by a socialist is more important than voting for the Best Guy.
Welcome to democracy: the system of least bad government.
--
This too shall pass.
See, "The Primary" was specifically the unacceptable answer I mentioned.
I said in the Primary that McCain was a bad choice. I am being consistant.
If I were to rate each candidate based on how well they'd do the job, if they were to get elected, and multiply that by the chance of their actually winning the election, I'd get a weighted value representing which candidate has best chance of best fulfilling my desires for President.
So what you're saying is, if I don't vote for McCain, I'm just bad at math.
The primary is the time for pie-in-the-sky idealism, and I will happily vote for the best candidate available in the primary, even if they have zero chance of winning the nomination. I'm not going to use the same process in the general election, because I think not being presided over by a socialist is more important than voting for the Best Guy.
Again comparing McCain to Obama to show that McCain is conservative.
Still not answering where we draw the line and say to the RNC "I'm not going to support them, you need to pick someone a little further to the right."
Still the same recycled arguments.
Doesn't work for me anymore.
Sorry.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I haven't called John McCain conservative in any of the comments I've made in this thread. Any of them. I'll break that streak right now: I think John McCain is conservative. He's not a movement conservative, he's not as conservative as I'd like, he's not as consistently conservative as I'd like, and he's not the guy I'd have picked, but he is conservative.
I have not accused you of inconsistency. In the meantime, you have done a nice job of taking a pragmatic comment about judicial appointments and misconstrued it as wholesale support. (I have also not brought up a well-worn quote about consistency and hobgoblins, but you're really pressing me.)
I have been comparing McCain to Obama to show that McCain is preferable.
If (A) you follow an algorithm like the one I outlined above, then one of the following must be true:
- There is some third-party candidate whose chances you right highly enough and whose positions you agree with sufficiently that the combination of those factors is stronger for that candidate than for John McCain.
- You judge Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain to be roughly equivalent in terms of how well they would do the job (presumably, equally poorly)
- You do not rate Sen. McCain's chances in the general election very highly at all.
- You are not very good with basic arithmetic.
1-3 would not be entirely unreasonable, but only the first of them seems credible here. 4 is the only logical conclusion if A is true.
Most likely, though, you are using a different approach to evaluating candidates, so other factors are influencing your decision and A is not true. Given the stakes, I think you err, but it's certainly your choice to spend your vote however you wish.
Finally, please, don't read between lines with me. I tend to say what I mean and do so as plainly as I know how.
Well, finally, finally: since you're the one challenging the initial assertion, it'd be really awesome, and in line with the usual rules of orderly debate, if you'd provide a reason of substance for my considering your position, rather than simply uttering 'Not good enough' when I explain my opinion. You're welcome to disagree, but I tire of explaining to a brick wall.
--
This too shall pass.
You're welcome to disagree, but I tire of explaining to a brick wall.
Ahh, so you DO know how I feel.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I was going to share it with the F-bomber of the day but you two might have earned it more yourselves:
Discover City!
Can't see the picture.
I'm guessing that I don't want to.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Ahh, must be why I couldn't see it. Such things are blocked where I am.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
It was going to come down to calling us both pompous jerks.
(At least, that's the impression I was able to get by digging up the lyrics and running them through Google's translater.)
I'd like to think a little better of myself than that. A little.
--
This too shall pass.
The song's really about a guy who's getting into bar fights all the time. I wanted you to enjoy the challenge to discover the East Berlin band City. This song was recorded in 1970.
Look downthread for a modern cover as we're running out of room here.
Whether I stay home, write in Donald Duck, write in my own name, or vote for Nader. They all result in exactly the same outcome. Either Obama or McCain is elected as the next President of the United States, and I threw away my say in which of those two it was.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
At what point do we draw lines?
And don't say "During the Primaries" . .. that is a cheap escape.
At what point do we say "No, we have copromised enough. If you don't give me someone to vote for, I will not vote for you." ?
Then, not just say it, but DO it?
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
so lets all keep in my citizens voted McCain in. Do we abanden the party prinicpals or our party because we all do not think the same. No, we keep our party in power. The democrats are making a better case for this then we are. Did Hilary or Bill say I endorse Obama.? No they said I will do whatever is needed for the democratic party to win, not Obama
Yeah.... In the last half dozen or so primaries, what were the choices on the Republican ticket?
McCain.
And... uh....
No, that was it.
And you're going to say that the people chose him?
When you only have one option, it isn't a choice.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
A time when losing isn't going to cost us a war, an economy, and possibly a culture.
--
This too shall pass.
in 2012, it will be an even worse time.
2016, even worse than 2012.
2020? Even worse.
However, each time we will be expected to compromise our principles to vote for someone even more to the left.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Not unless you have a really fantastic crystal ball.
Put up or shut up: what makes this the year we demand ideological purity instead of compromising to put the most conservative pol available in the office?
--
This too shall pass.
If we wait until the moments have passed, we will NEVER change it. We will continue to move to the left, because we will always say "Gee... I don't know.. this might not be the right time to do this.... oooo... we'd better just keep going along with the flow...."
What makes this the year we demand Conservativism? It isn't. It should be demanded EVERY year. THIS year is the year we are currently in. The Demand for Conservativism should never stop.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
That more didn't decide 2000 was the year to make this stand, or we could easily be talking about President Gore right now. If you think a loss to Gore in 2000 would shock the GOP into finding some pure conservative to run in 2004, you are mistaken. All you have to do is look at 1996 to see that isn't the case. Anyway, I'll take W any day of the week over Gore.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
*yawn*
I'm done discussing this.
There will never be a time that you stand up for conservative principles.
You will always find a reason to compromise them for the sake of a Republican win, even if that Republican sides with Democrats more times than not.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I just care about the actual consequence of my actions. It might feel good to vote for whoever the no chance candidate of choice is so I can say "Hey! I didn't vote for him! Don't blame me!," but I couldn't live with the consequences if McCain lost. Sitting out/writing in/voting 3rd party is the easy out.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
my sons and I are to the conservation club today and blast a couple hundred rounds.