.jpg)
Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment - whether this right to bear arms is individualized or only relevant to a well armed militia. There will be no skirting of this issue. The case won't get bounced on technicalities like jurisdiction, standing, or ripeness. The Court will address the issue head on (with an opinion probably released in June.)But the Supreme Court, which is getting kind of hip these days, will release the audio of the oral arguments later today. It might be as exciting as watching paint dry, but I'll probably check it out. (But on the rare occasions they do release audio, they always do it in that stupid RealAudio format.) Edit: Here it is. Written transcript here.
Sidenote: Did you know it's still legal in Texas to walk down the street with a rifle or shotgun?
Edit: The most entertaining review (as always) is by Dahlia Lithwick over at Slate. I don't know what that lady looks like but I'd make her wife #9.
10 comments:
Did you also know it's a bad idea to put used strings on a Banjo?
The right to bear arms will never be taken away from the individual. The gun lobby is too strong and it would be a logistical nightmare for the government to oversee the elimination of an individual citizen's right to own and carry firearms, i.e. having to create a new agency to go out and collect the millions of privately ownd guns in the US.
Of course it's always scary when the Democrats take office because they want to limit the 2nd Amendment, but, just like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, this too shall pass.
I don't think the court is activist (or liberal) enough to infringe upon the right of the individual to bear arms.
And besides, Molon Labe!
I think everybody ought to have as much unregulated firepower as possible. I'm looking for a good used howitzer for my front yard.
When James Madison first introduced the Bill of Rights, here's how he had the 2nd amendment worded:"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
I hope the supreme court gets it right.
a person should fear the goverment that wants to disarm him
I have never understood the "concealed" thing. Wouldn't it be a lot more effective to carry it our where every nutcase could see it?
11:13, what makes our society immune to having guns taken away? Check your history, I'm talking the histories of nations over long periods of time. Millions had those same thoughts about land they owned, property they thought was theirs, and so forth. Fact is, when your views are outnumbered in the body politic, or when someone stronger takes over, you'll give up whatever they want or you will die. Guess what, folks like you are now outnumbered, and will be increasingly so, so get ready for socialism...and down the road the loss of a handgun.
Read the transcript of the SC's oral arguments today, 1:58. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg was ripping into the petitioner's attorney.
You're wrong on this one, my friend. Do you understand how hard it is to amend the constitution? One amendment in its history has been repealed. I seriously doubt that this little movement to ban firearm ownership has the momentum you believe it does.
I'm positive there are more "people like me" than you think. Watch and see.
1:58?!?!
Why do you think this came #2 right after free speech from our foundung fathers?!: because they knew their history!
Why would the meaning of "people" change from one ammendment to the other?! it doesn't
Jarhead, it wouldn't take a constitutional amendment to change the Constitution. The nine lawyers on the Supreme Court change the Constitution all the time; e.g., the "right" to an abortion, which is nowhere in the Constitution.
All the nine lawyers have to do is say something is so -- that's the power the activist courts have assumed. One vote from them and our 2nd Amendment rights are history.
The balance of power will only shift away from the Supreme Court when the justices make a somewhat conservative decision, and the Democrat-controlled Congress decides to override it.
Post a Comment