Absolutely positive. She's replacing a liberal judge, the other 5 majority wouldn't change.
Also notice Sotomeyor doesn't believe in the 2nd amendment. She went with the minority opinion. How this can even be a 5-4 decision is beyond me.
You sure?
It's about damn time. Too bad people are still so divided over it. The right to keep and bear arms is just as important as the rights to free speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion
She is replacing a liberal. I might eat crow, but I would guess Steven's dissented on this decision.
So the vote would remain the same.
Thanks. Haven't been following it too much.She is replacing a liberal. I might eat crow, but I would guess Steven's dissented on this decision.
So the vote would remain the same.
Thanks. Too bad too long for a sig.Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayer disented.
And if you read their reasons why, it's gawd damn scary. Never have I read such authoritarian, history revisionist bullshit in my life... oh wait, I have: From gun grabber's websites. They simply aped the gun grabbers item by item. A complete twisting of the 2nd into a "collective" right. And the sources they list as historical evidence read like a who's who of gun grabbers in academia.
I guess doing their own research was too hard and not following the party line.
Well, here ya go guys, the framer's themselves telling us what the Second Amendment means:
The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
In the last Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
I can't wait to hear that pig Richard Daley squealing about this ruling
In an interview with the Tribune, the mayor said his primary goal would be to protect police officers, paramedics and emergency workers from being shot when responding to an incident at a home. He said he also wants to save taxpayers from the financial cost of lawsuits if police shoot someone in the house because the officer felt threatened.
"If the ban is overturned, we will see a lot of common-sense approaches in the city aimed at protecting first responders," Daley said. "We have to have some type of registry. If a first responder goes to an apartment, they need to know if that individual has a gun."
You do know their world is one of knee-jerk reactions with little to no thought for the consequences - right?Nope, he's trying to come up with even more stupid gun laws. From chicago tribune..
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/...r-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html
Dumbass! You don't know if the criminals have them, the criminals are the ones you need to be concerned with, not law abiding citizens legally owning firearms.
Yeah I gotta read the dissenting opinion. Should be interesting.
Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayer disented.
And if you read their reasons why, it's gawd damn scary. Never have I read such authoritarian, history revisionist bullshit in my life... oh wait, I have: From gun grabber's websites. They simply aped the gun grabbers item by item. A complete twisting of the 2nd into a "collective" right. And the sources they list as historical evidence read like a who's who of gun grabbers in academia.
I guess doing their own research was too hard and not following the party line.
Well, here ya go guys, the framer's themselves telling us what the Second Amendment means:
The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
In the last Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
Excellent post. It is indeed truly scary that this was a 5-4 vote. If one conservative justice falls and Obama appoints a replacement, then we have the progressive position - that you have the right to be armed only when the government drafts you, gives you a gun, and tells you who to shoot. One vote from being disarmed. (Or alternately I suppose, one vote from civil war.)
We already have Kelo v. New London, establishing that your highest purpose in life is to produce revenue for government. If SCOTUS flips on the Second Amendment, does anyone really think the remaining rights will long remain? We are SO close to being government property.
Excellent post. It is indeed truly scary that this was a 5-4 vote. If one conservative justice falls and Obama appoints a replacement, then we have the progressive position - that you have the right to be armed only when the government drafts you, gives you a gun, and tells you who to shoot. One vote from being disarmed. (Or alternately I suppose, one vote from civil war.)
We already have Kelo v. New London, establishing that your highest purpose in life is to produce revenue for government. If SCOTUS flips on the Second Amendment, does anyone really think the remaining rights will long remain? We are SO close to being government property.
I hate to break up hate-fest, but looking at the actual facts of the case, this was more on if a state could totally ban handguns, then anything else.
It seems this, as with many SCOTUS cases, was a technical case on the fine-print of the law, which would probably explain the close decision. It wasn't a " OMG, they ruled on a broad topic and banned my guns!". They ruled on a narrow technical detail. That's what the SCOTUS does. But I guess that makes it too hard for people to understand, so it gets condensed down to the "they ruled against guns" or " they let us keep our guns".
And you might note that nowhere does it say that you can't effectively ban handguns, by imposing ridiculous permits/costs/paperwork to effectively prevent people from doing it. (which is kinda stupid IMHO, but whatever)
Good that the Court, even with an inevitably split decision, has held to uphold the right for individuals to bear arms.
I am watching the Kagan confirmation hearing right now and she just got challenged with an extraordinary opening statement by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Sen. Leahy of Vermont in starting off the hearing gave only meaningless platitudes. If you can find a video of Sessions' opening statement, watch it. It wiped that silly smile right off her face.
This is good. 6/16/10I am watching the Kagan confirmation hearing right now and she just got challenged with an extraordinary opening statement by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Sen. Leahy of Vermont in starting off the hearing gave only meaningless platitudes. If you can find a video of Sessions' opening statement, watch it. It wiped that silly smile right off her face.
Yep. If the 14th can be used to forced every other right, then why not the 2nd?
So now if you want to disarm law abiding citizens, you'll need to amend the Constitution. Good luck with that.
What?
Constitutional amendments supercede any state or local laws. There should be no debate here. The Constitution grants citizens the right to keep and bare arms, and that right shall not be infringed Clearly banning handguns is infringing on this amendment.
What fine print are you talking about? The 2nd amendment is the same size font as all the others.
The way out for the Court, then, may be to decide the case on an extremely narrow basis, dealing only with the very specific right established by Heller, and saying that, while that right is so fundamental that it applies to all government, it can be regulated by state and local agencies if they can demonstrate clearly that they have done so reasonably. As it did in Heller, the Court may well reiterate, and further clarify, examples of valid regulation that states, counties and cities might undertake. But, as to the two cities laws directly at issue, the Court seems unlikely to go ahead and rule on their constitutionality, leaving that task in the first instance to the lower courts when the cases return to them.
It is a virtual certainty, of course, that any decision that emerges is likely to divide the Court deeply, as Heller did. Thus, the decision in the case is likely to be one of the last to emerge from the Court near Terms end.
The first argument to collapse as the hearing unfolded was the plea by the lawyer for gun rights advocates, Alan Gura of Alexandria, VA, that the Court should incorporate the Second Amendment into the 14th Amendment through the privileges or immunities clause. In the first comment from the bench after Gura had barely opened, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., noted that the Court had essentially scuttled that argument with its ruling in the SlaughterHouse Cases in 1873. And within a few minutes, Justice Antonin Scalia the author of the Heller opinion and the Courts most fervent gun enthusiast was sarcastically dismissing the privileges or immunities argument.
Why, Scalia asked Gura, are you asking us to overrule 140 years of prior law .unless you are bucking for a place on some law school faculty. The Justice said the privileges or immunities argument was the darling of the professorate but wondered why Gura would undertake that burden. And Scalia noted that the due process clause an open-ended provision that he has strongly attacked on other occasions was available as the vehicle for incorporation, and added: Even I have acquisced in that. Gura somewhat meekly said we would be extremely happy: if the Court used the due process clause to extend the Second Amendments reach.
Absolutely positive. She's replacing a liberal judge, the other 5 majority wouldn't change.
Also notice Sotomeyor doesn't believe in the 2nd amendment. She went with the minority opinion. How this can even be a 5-4 decision is beyond me.