Comments on: Court takes no action on gun case

By: Dennis Mastriani

Dennis Mastriani — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:34:50 +0000

As a resident of the state where the amendment
originated, I would like to see the court rule before the mayor of Pa. and his Philadelphia
socilists take our second amendment rights away.

By: John Call

John Call — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:29:56 +0000

The ACLU isn’t anywhere near this issue. It was the American Civil Rights Union that filed an amicus brief on the cert petition.

By: Mark Wallace

Mark Wallace — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:13:12 +0000

The ACLU is a commie organization? I always thought of it as a lobby for terrorists. Osama bin Laden’s lobbyist in Washington.

By: Mike Hoiriis

Mike Hoiriis — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:47:58 +0000

So I did it again, sorry folks…time for bed!

By: Mike Hoiriis

Mike Hoiriis — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:47:05 +0000

Appolgies, I can spell far better than I type!

By: Mike Hoiriis

Mike Hoiriis — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:45:55 +0000

What I can’t fathom is how the National Guard is even mentioned in a second amendment conversation. If you were to read the state consititutions of both MA and NH (states with polar opposite views of private gun ownership) you would find that the militia definition specifically EXCLUDES members of the National Guard from being in the militia. Their definition of militia is crystal clear that all other citizens over 18 are in the militia. That then would be the “people” and not the National Guard have thier rights protected by the constitution. This should be a non-issue and D.C. should not have been able to violate the rights of its citizens for over 30 years any more than Ray Negian and Eddie Compass should have been allowed to infringe the 2nd A rights of the citizens of New Orleans after Katrina. The real question should be not wether of not SCOTUS will take Heller, but how the hell did this get this far?

By: Lauren Smith

Lauren Smith — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:19:34 +0000

Marcus, can please explain your disagreement with Robert’s analysis?

By: Marcus Poulin

Marcus Poulin — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:58:35 +0000

Robert you’re totally wrong.

No serious Con law scholar would
give you much intellectual veracity.

By: Doug Fennema

Doug Fennema — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:54:55 +0000

The ACLU is not taking our side Eric.
At least not at this point and probably never.
Remember ,its a Commie organization.

By: william collins

william collins — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:35:16 +0000

hoorah,john spencer has hit the nail on the head.
each and every amendment is for the individual,
and so is the 2nd. otherwise their all useless.

By: Marcus Poulin

Marcus Poulin — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:28:36 +0000

November 20th is the day the next group
of orders will be released Kevin.

By: Robert Brian Crim

Robert Brian Crim — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:52:51 +0000

If we look only at history, the Second Amendment is an amendment solely of the militia clauses (Art. I, Sec. 8), and was designed solely to prevent the Federal government from using its militia powers to arm its own forces with weapons of mass destruction while it limited the state militias to slings and arrows. The idea of using “interstate commerce” in those days to regulate firearms was off the wall — they didn’t even have interchangeable parts back then. All weapons (even cannons) were locally made.

But, there is a Federal right to arms written deeply into the structure of the Constitution, itself, in the Treason Clause and concurrent treason statutes of the States, so a blanket ban by D.C. is unconstitutional for overbreadth — it bans not only nuisance “pocket pistols” but genuine militia arms as well (e.g., my .45 auto-loader or .223). Heller has a better case if he chooses the right gun (and brings in the Ninth Amendment as well). It also helps if he pleads his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor.

I guess that makes me for Heller, though by a strange association. In the same vein, I would assert that “war” in the legal sense is a condition which can affect sovereigns only (private warfare is illegal). “Warring” on “terrorism,” like all previous such “wars” (on ignorance, poverty, inflation, &c.), employs “war” as a metaphor and has no constitutional recognition.

Osama bin Ladin is no more than a pirate.

See The Ambrose Light (SDNY, 1887).

By: Marcus Poulin

Marcus Poulin — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:37:52 +0000

Then considering no certiorari orders for Heller
today how many people think it was denied?

I have been waiting for a preeminent 2nd Amendment case for MOST OF MY LIFE!

1939 – 2007 without a case is a bit
of lackadaisical durational laziness
on Supreme Jurisprudence!

By: William Gray

William Gray — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:25:58 +0000

Merely allowing the lower fed court decision to stand would be a meaningless outcome. There are no gun stores in Wash DC and no current system to buy handguns in other states and legally transport them to the Wash DC resident’s home. In addition, the current storage laws are not in play. Having any fiream but having it inoperable as required now (permitted arms must be locked up and/or dissambled)is useless. The home invader won’t wait for you to get ready to repel boarders

By: John Spencer

John Spencer — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:41:19 +0000

The lesser courts are split, and the various interpretations of the 2nd are sometimes ludicrous. It is time the SCOTUS, taking into account the obvious intent of the founding fathers, told people what the 2nd really means to the individual legal resident (not just citizens).

Remember, had the Second had been written to say: “A well-fed militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to store and eat food shall not be infringed,” in no way could that be interpreted to mean that only the National Guard has the right to eat.