Fingon Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1801354_pf.html Bravo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Related story in 12 months "Home invasions decrease by 50%." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Related story in 12 months "Home invasions decrease by 50%." because shotguns don't prevent home invasions...only handguns do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Bravo SC, bravo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 because shotguns don't prevent home invasions...only handguns do... I'll bet you cannot assemble your shotgun, load it and position yourself to defend your home in the time it takes a criminal to break through your door or window. I would never consider a dissasembled gun proper protection from criminals and apparently neither do the multitude of criminals in DC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 You are aware that the Court has not issued its holding? This was merely oral argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 You are aware that the Court has not issued its holding? This was merely oral argument Well, what the hell are they waiting for!!!! The coverage for this has been excellent, IMO. ScotusBlog live blogged it yesterday, and had the transcript up by 2:30PM. Oyez even has the arguments up in an mp3 file, and you can follow along with the transcript (here). Remarkable. Combine this argument with Obama's speech on race, and we had quite a day yesterday as a nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 19, 2008 Author Share Posted March 19, 2008 You are aware that the Court has not issued its holding? This was merely oral argument Well, it's pretty obvious which way they will rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Well, it's pretty obvious which way they will rule. no its not - four justices (Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and THomas) will likely find that the D.C. reg violates the 2nd amendment. Four justices (Ginsberg, Beyer, Souter, and stevens) will likely find that the regulation was a reasonably necessary restriction within the city's powers that serves an important interest. That leaves Kennedy as a "swing vote" and nobody knows where he sits on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Four justices (Ginsberg, Beyer, Souter, and stevens) will likely find that the regulation was a reasonably necessary restriction within the city's powers that serves an important interest. Where, oh where, are the liberal champions of individual rights? You know, the ones I always hear about when something like "free speech" is being violated. Quick, let's use some specious "word play" argument to toss out the 2nd Amendment. We're all VERY lucky that these idiots weren't around when people were taking up their own arms against England... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Where, oh where, are the liberal champions of individual rights? You know, the ones I always hear about when something like "free speech" is being violated. Quick, let's use some specious "word play" argument to toss out the 2nd Amendment. We're all VERY lucky that these idiots weren't around when people were taking up their own arms against England... Where, oh where, are the conservative champions of State rights? I guess when the NRA and Bush are parties to a case the conservative block cares about individual rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Where, oh where, are the conservative champions of State rights? They're in the South. And 150 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Where, oh where, are the liberal champions of individual rights? You know, the ones I always hear about when something like "free speech" is being violated. Quick, let's use some specious "word play" argument to toss out the 2nd Amendment. We're all VERY lucky that these idiots weren't around when people were taking up their own arms against England... Where, oh where, are the strict constructionist judges that the conservatives love. Good thing that they don't take literally the part about a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." We're all VERY lucky that Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia turn out to be activist judges when the conservatives want them to be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 They're in the South. And 150 years ago. Something tells me that Tom is ancy to get his handgun from the local Wal-mart . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Where, oh where, are the strict constructionist judges that the conservatives love. Good thing that they don't take literally the part about a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Gee, what a surprse. A liberal using the word play game on a topic they have virtually no understanding of (gee, I think I alluded to that already. So thanks for not disappointing). Keep lapping up the spoiled milk your masters are shoveling at you. We're all VERY lucky that Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia turn out to be activist judges when the conservatives want them to be... It has little to do with "liberal vs conservative". It has to do with balance of power of the individual versus the state and the implicit right granted by perhaps the greatest document man has ever produced. But keep pretending you have any clue what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Where, oh where, are the conservative champions of State rights? It has nothing to do with State's rights and that is a tired response from someone who actually knows the difference. I guess when the NRA and Bush are parties to a case the conservative block cares about individual rights. Could we please stop looping the current administration in with the term "conservative"? This is a liberal and power hungry a group as has ever been in office. Just because they don't serve exactly the same masters that the Democrats do doesn't mean they are at all conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Gosh I always thought regulating handguns kept guns away from the badguys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Where, oh where, are the conservative champions of State rights? I guess when the NRA and Bush are parties to a case the conservative block cares about individual rights. So you believe the state has the right to take away rights? Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 So you believe the state has the right to take away rights? Brilliant. Constitutional rights at that. Any other amendments in the original Bill of Rights not considered to be "individual"? Article the third [1st Amendment] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Article the fourth [2nd Amendment] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Article the fifth [3rd Amendment] No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Article the sixth [4th Amendment] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Article the seventh [5th Amendment] No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Article the eighth [6th Amendment] In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Article the ninth [7th Amendment] In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Article the tenth [8th Amendment] Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Article the eleventh [9th Amendment] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Article the twelfth [10th Amendment] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibitedby it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people But you liberals keep pretending you're on to something. Let's pretend that the Founding Fathers were stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 So you believe the state has the right to take away rights? Brilliant. ugh! ok, I am a lawyer and am not going to give a Constitutional Law lecture. However, take speech for example. The government can restrict speech - but their ability to do so depends on what type of speech they are restricting, how narrowly tailored the restriction is, and how important the state interest is. This is what is called strict, intermediate, and rational scrutiny (other lawyers may use different terms). For example, political speech receives strict scrutiny - the state must have a compelling interest to achieve a necessary end. Most restrictions fail under strict scrutiny. However, business speech (i.e. advertisements) receives rational scrutiny, meaning a law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Most restrictions are upheld under rational scrutiny. The issue before the Court is which level of scrutiny will be applied to the D.C. law. As far as I know, this is a case of first impression for the Court, thus the importance. To answer your question - your rights are never absolute. Thus the phrase "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts