Thread: District of Columbia v. Heller
06-27-2008, 12:39 PMGun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown
The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
06-27-2008, 04:29 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
- no-man's land in Texas
Posted by David Hardy · 26 June 2008 02:20 PM
Comment on to previous post points out at p.2 of the Stevens dissent he refers to NFA and US v. Miller: "Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that..."
Same mistake the 9th Circus made years ago and had to issue a new opinion, since Miller was never convicted -- commentators noted this was pretty suggestive the court hadn't bothered to read Miller before citing it. First thing you look for in reading a case is what happened below, and what the Court do to that. Very first thing.
I'd add that at 41 he refers to:
"In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating the 'National Guard of the several States,' Perpich 496 U.S. at 341 and nn. 9-10."
Reading that part of Perpich v. Dodd: It says in 1901 President Roosevelt called for reforming the militia. He didn't create the National Guard (where would he have had the authority?)
On the next page Perpich says that Congress in 1903 enacted the Dick Act, which created the "National Guard of the Several States." Footnote 11 of that opinion, referring to creation of the Guard, begins: "The Act of January 21, 1903, 32 Stat. 775, provided in part..." So I guess he didn't read the Perpich case, either, let alone verify the dates and who did what.
And none of the four signing onto this opinion, and none of their clerks, saw these items?
What a bunch of morons!
06-27-2008, 04:39 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
That is a good primer on incorporation, I can find something else if you're interested.
06-27-2008, 09:22 PM--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
06-28-2008, 02:08 AM
The house of cards begins to fall...
Wilmette Suspends Local Handgun Ban
WILMETTE, Ill. -- Wilmette has suspended enforcement of its 19-year-old ordinance banning handgun possession in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that appears to invalidate such bans.
In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, a prohibition similar to those used in several major cities, including Chicago, and a handful of suburbs including Wilmette, Evanston, Winnetka and Oak Park.
"The Law Department and the Police Department have suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review by the Village Board," Wilmette village attorney Tim Frenzer said Thursday. "Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance."
Frenzer said questions remain about how directly the court's decision will impact local gun laws in Wilmette and other parts of the country. Washington is not a state, and each state has its own legal language governing the right to bear arms.I like to shoot people with my CANON.
JohnGuest06-28-2008, 06:00 AM
When will these idiot gun controllers learn that a tool is a tool is a tool, but intent makes violence?
Oh, and to anyone who believes this decision doesn't apply to states proper, you are wrong. D.C. isn't a state, but SCOTUS case law applies to all SCOTUS cases, and to those cases in lesser courts. As a matter of fact, the soon-to-be-ex mayer of Chicago is going fetal around Chicago's handgun ban, which is soon to be challenged and overturned. This decision *does* apply to the states as equally as it applies to D.C. However, the scope of this decision is so narrow, that it does little to flesh out what exactly 'reasonable regulation' is. That is our next target while we have a worthy SCOTUS, to determine exactly what regulation is reasonable.
I have a simple idea. Any weapon of lesser power than a crew-served military weapon should be protected under the 2A. If one soldier can carry and operate it, then it a citizen has the right to carry that weapon. I doubt the Courts, States, and Brady Group will see it so simple.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|