Breaking: Gun right affirmed

[War on Want]

Yay!!!

[Χahar]

I'm just happy the left's only argument here is "Scalia sucks!".  I like when the bad guys know they've lost.

Well, he does suck.

Not always.

Almost always.

[Senator Ben]

I'm just happy the left's only argument here is "Scalia sucks!".  I like when the bad guys know they've lost.

Well, he does suck.

Not always.

Almost always.

60-40

[Χahar]

I'm just happy the left's only argument here is "Scalia sucks!".  I like when the bad guys know they've lost.

Well, he does suck.

Not always.

Almost always.

60-40

95-5

[Emsworth]

The Supreme Court's decision in Heller is quite clearly correct. The opinion was generally very good, except for the parts that identified restrictions on handgun use and ownership that would be constitutional. These hypothetical restrictions were not before the Court in this case, and the Justices should not have commented on them.

The dissents, on the other hand, were almost painful to read. Particularly egregious is Justice Stevens' admonition: "[the decision] will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries." Pot calling the kettle black?

[CARLHAYDEN]

The Supreme Court's decision in Heller is quite clearly correct. The opinion was generally very good, except for the parts that identified restrictions on handgun use and ownership that would be constitutional. These hypothetical restrictions were not before the Court in this case, and the Justices should not have commented on them.

The dissents, on the other hand, were almost painful to read. Particularly egregious is Justice Stevens' admonition: "[the decision] will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries." Pot calling the kettle black?

Excellent analysis.

I really find it hillarious that the gun grabbers are going to try to argue that the second amendment "right of the people" should not apply to the state and local governments while the first amendment "Congress shall make no law" does!

Justice Black had it right several decades ago!

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I'm happy with the ruling, but I disagree with it.

[MSUfan]

I'm happy with the ruling, but I disagree with it.

Mind expanding on that?

[AkSaber]

Yay! About time the D.C. ban was given the heave-hoe.

[Sensei]

The Supreme Court's decision in Heller is quite clearly correct. The opinion was generally very good, except for the parts that identified restrictions on handgun use and ownership that would be constitutional. These hypothetical restrictions were not before the Court in this case, and the Justices should not have commented on them.

The dissents, on the other hand, were almost painful to read. Particularly egregious is Justice Stevens' admonition: "[the decision] will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries." Pot calling the kettle black?

Excellent analysis.

I really find it hillarious that the gun grabbers are going to try to argue that the second amendment "right of the people" should not apply to the state and local governments while the first amendment "Congress shall make no law" does!

Justice Black had it right several decades ago!

Stevens complaining about an activist judiciary? lol

[InsaneTrollLogic]

It's hypocracy at it's finest, but Stevens is right. Though this ruling was a good ruling and one that I agree with, this ruling will help mature the developing tradition of rightist judicial activism. This would not be the only time in American history where rightist judges dictated our national policy. However, this tradition of activism is now running paralell with liberal judicial activism and could create an environment where the Supreme Court is relied on as a super legislature in a bigger way than even before. Perhaps as the tradition of a strong judiciary runs concurrent with trends in biological technology, we could see a super legislature in which any one member can control this country in a time measured in many decades, instead of many years. Perhaps this will give rise to the time where there is a strong enough support for a Constitutional Amendment to create a "control" branch to the judiciary, made up of law clerks that are voted on by the American Bar Association or an "examination" branch at the various levels of government to prevent unconstitutional laws. Perhaps there could even be an amendment to force federal judges to be voted on. Then again, in the Stoic philosophy that helped found this country, there should always be a nobility to check the will of the people so that only the best change can come forward.

[J. J.]

It's hypocracy at it's finest, but Stevens is right. Though this ruling was a good ruling and one that I agree with, this ruling will help mature the developing tradition of rightist judicial activism. This would not be the only time in American history where rightist judges dictated our national policy.

You would basically have to say that there was a 300 year tradition of "rightest judges," and rightest constitutional assemblies, and legislatures.

Stevens, in trying to equate 18th Century regulations, especially the Philadelphia Ordinance, drew a false analogy.  It dealt with the use of a firearm verses the possession of a firearm.

It's a bit like saying that since you can be prohibited from driving a motorcycle through the Senate Chamber, you don't have a right to own a motorcycle.

I thought Stevens did a very poor job on trying to use the history of gun laws to justify his position.

[WalterMitty]

i renew my call for a consitutional amendment to ban handguns.

[MSUfan]

i renew my call for a consitutional amendment to ban handguns.

I renew my call for a repeal of the 21st amendment in order to reinstate the 18th.

Hurts...doesn't it?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I'm happy with the ruling, but I disagree with it.

Mind expanding on that?

I disagree with their definition of milita.  I interpret it as a literal militia, but I've always advocated another amendment that would clearly give citizens the right to own guns - now that won't be needed though - thus my happy attitude toward a ruling that I disagree with.

[MSUfan]

I'm happy with the ruling, but I disagree with it.

Mind expanding on that?

I disagree with their definition of milita.  I interpret it as a literal militia, but I've always advocated another amendment that would clearly give citizens the right to own guns - now that won't be needed though - thus my happy attitude toward a ruling that I disagree with.

OIC

[WalterMitty]

i renew my call for a consitutional amendment to ban handguns.

I renew my call for a repeal of the 21st amendment in order to reinstate the 18th.

Hurts...doesn't it?

lolz.

BCUZ WALTERMITTY IZ A BIGGGGGGGGGGG DRUNK!!!1111

[So the Heroes Fall]

i renew my call for a consitutional amendment to ban handguns.

And I renew my call for a constitutional amendment to protect strip clubs. Which has just as much chance of passing.

[MSUfan]

i renew my call for a consitutional amendment to ban handguns.

I renew my call for a repeal of the 21st amendment in order to reinstate the 18th.

Hurts...doesn't it?

lolz.

BCUZ WALTERMITTY IZ A BIGGGGGGGGGGG DRUNK!!!1111

Lol because Flem can't handle a hand gun without killing somebody!!!

[Iosif is a COTHO]

meh. Americans are gun nuts. Nothing's going to change that. I've given up arguing over this.

[Sam Spade]

If I were a real Democrat (you know, instead of a registered one), I would be quite happy with this ruling.  Why?  Because the effect on the Prez election (not to mention downballot races) should the Court have ruled otherwise would have been quite major.

[Vasall des Midas]

If I were a real Democrat (you know, instead of a registered one), I would be quite happy with this ruling.  Why?  Because the effect on the Prez election (not to mention downballot races) should the Court have ruled otherwise would have been quite major.

Probably true...

[Vasall des Midas]

Funny how Scalia can be so constitutionally wrong one week (Gitmo) and be constitutionally right the next (gun rights).

Correct. The point is that he is a Republican Justice, not an Originalist Justice. He taught himself today the value of the constitution being read in a reasonable fashion. Then again, he read between the lines in Bush v. Gore and of course, Scalia has his own Substantive Due Process test that allows for constitutional protection of all things that America has a "traditional" history of protection.

...and half of this decision was based on that alone.

[Emsworth]

I disagree with their definition of milita. I interpret it as a literal militia...

What's there to disagree with? The Supreme Court interpreted the word "militia" to mean a "literal" militia as well. The point of the ruling is that although the prefaratory clause of the Second Amendment refers to "militia," the operative clause refers to "people," which is supposed to be a broader term; thus, the right to bear arms belongs to all the people, and not just to members of a select militia.

[SPC]

Funny how Scalia can be so constitutionally wrong one week (Gitmo) and be constitutionally right the next (gun rights).

Curious. Did you read his opinion in each case; judiciously examine the historical materials; contrast his reasoning with various competing arguments; and then arrive at this conclusion? Or did you simply pick the result that strikes you as more intuitively just, and assume it must be correct? (There is admittedly middle ground, but few seem to occupy it.)

It doesn't take a rocker scientist to read the Constitution. Anyone with good eyes/reading glasses and a good sense of logic can see that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus on anyone, since that power is only given to Congress during emergency situations. It never says anywhere that it doesn't apply to foreigners. In addition, anyone can read that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, though one could argue that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, keep in mind that DC is technically part of the federal government. What is the point of having a social contract if only one side of the contract can interpret it?