RDF:![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
We almost had to create a special category named “Fan-Freaking-TASTIC” especially for this post, since “Good News” doesn’t really do it justice.
It would appear that a court of the land, the DC Circuit Court to be specific, actually took the time to, you know, read the 2nd Amendment [all emphases in the quotes ours]:
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).
Bada-fucking-BING! Please note that these uncommonly (for the courts in this country) perceptive judges noticed that the 2nd doesn’t say a single word about “hunting”, which is what the mouth-breathing retard GFW would have you believe every time they start blathering about “sensible” gun controls.
And, of course, the REAL zinger here is the emphasis on individual right, an issue that has scared the robes off of judges in the past.
In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
Which should be self-evident to anybody with an IQ above that of a vibrator but, sadly, it still needs pointing out from time to time. Good job daring to do so, your Honors!
Note: Some may be puzzled about the bit about “enrollment in the militia” since, as anybody who can actually read will quite happily tell you, “enrollment in the militia” happens automatically if you’re male and survive to your 18th birthday (17th in at least one state, if we remember correctly), but that’s not the point here. The point here is that the majority opinion here specifically kicks the whole “militia as a prerequisite for keeping and bearing arms” off the table as the balderdash and functional illiteracy that it truly is.
The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State.
Which is, of course, yet another bogus argument from the GFWs. Yes, Virginia, individuals living in a district are The People too! Imagine that. The reason it’s mentioned is that the court was called upon to rule as to whether DC gun control laws are unconstitutional or not. The majority clearly and unequivocally found that they are.
Of course, every court has to have a member that can’t read above Kindergarten level, and this court is no exception:
Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.
Judge Henderson’s dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right based on what she considers to be binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring that result.
Take your Stare Decisis and shove it up your arse sideways. Yes, we do agree that precedent should be taken into serious consideration, previous findings certainly aren’t irrelevant, nor should they be treated as such, but the notion that precedent is always and invariably infallible is, to put it charitably, a load of idiotic, ignorant, imbecilic nonsense. We’re sure that every single black citizen of our nation would agree. At least we haven’t heard any complaints from them about the fact that the legal precedent of treating black people like property was abandoned, but perhaps Justice Henderson would disagree on that too?
Short version: While precedent is important, it remains a fact that even people in black robes get it wrong from time to time, no matter how much some of them may think that they’re actually G-d. To ignore that and, furthermore, to use as an “argument” that you’re right solely because somebody else said so in the past proves only the shallowness of your sorely lacking intellect and the absence of any actual merit to your argument.
If this finding makes its way to the Supreme Court, we could have the single most important ruling on the Second Amendment in recorded history coming up.
Entries (RSS)
Could this be a glimmer of a hint of a spark of a sliver of the return to normalcy in government and the judiciary specifically?
March 9th, 2007 at 12:23 PMDoes this mean that the adults are in charge once more?
Using
Hot Damn!!! I’m a go out and buy me a rocket launcher when I get home. Hoooooeeeee…
March 9th, 2007 at 12:28 PMUsing
Somewhat on topic- more good news today from my locale, the fast fading Imperial hinterland of The City of Bruthly Love an Shit.
Even in the midst of the ghettozens trying to change state law to ban non-felons from owning guns in Philly, hope is not yet dead.
March 9th, 2007 at 12:42 PMUsing
[…] Anti-Idiotarian Rotti […]
March 9th, 2007 at 12:43 PMUsing
Hey Boswell,
March 9th, 2007 at 12:46 PMWere you born a major arsehole, or are you taking lessons?
Using
Whoohooo!
Kinda makes ya wanna go home and get your noise-makers out.
ifyaknowwhatimean
Seriously, a glimmer of good news that the ideas of our founding fathers have not been completely discarded.
March 9th, 2007 at 12:49 PMUsing
I vote Boswell was dropped on his head by the doctor at birth a few dozen times.
March 9th, 2007 at 12:50 PMUsing
Emperor, grant me an indulgence, if you will…
FUCKIN A!!!!
I simply MUST go to the range this weekend!
PLEASE, DC, appeal it! PLEASE! USSC here we come!
March 9th, 2007 at 12:52 PMUsing
I almost cheered when I read this, and I was about to send it your way if you hadn’t gotten it already.
I’d put money on DC appealing it. DC is run by the same breed of crazyass liberals that run Maryland and California.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:04 PMUsing
Oh, and boswell, a rocket launcher? I’d think you’d have better things to spend your money on. Like, oh, I don’t know, carbon offsets?
March 9th, 2007 at 1:09 PMUsing
Hey Boswell,
Remember - the pointy end of that rocket launcher goes against your head.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:19 PMUsing
Oh, and boswell, a rocket launcher? I’d think you’d have better things to spend your money on. Like, oh, I don’t know, carbon offsets?
Clarion, Bos would only need a rocket launcher because he earlier did not take seriously enough the danger of government tyranny and the precious right to self-defense and self-determination.
Bos, doesn’t it suck to see always only the negative?
March 9th, 2007 at 1:28 PMUsing
Nice to see those folks finally learned to read.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:39 PMUsing
One of the important points we need to emphasis that the Constitution and the laws of America do not give us our rights, as noted in the founding documents, these rights are God given and the job of the Constitution is to limit the role of government in restricting them. They seem to see this in this decision (if I read this except correctly) as they point out that residents of DC have them even thought DC is not a state.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:50 PMUsing
Um, isn’t the rate of death’s by gun’s extremely high in comparison to cities where they aren’t shitting all over our Constitution. I know some are saying crime in Florida has gone down.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:56 PMUsing
While this is a victory for the pro-2A movement, i can see D.C. making handguns legal because of the ruling but then making ammunition illegal, or some such bullshit.
March 9th, 2007 at 2:15 PMUsing
I just remember hearing that deaths by guns went up when they banned them.
I think that word pro 2A movement is funny. Never heard it. But I guess you would have to come up with shit like this since many American’s seem to be very much against our Constitution.
Now we need some judges to properly begin to understand the meaning of treason and what the Constitution says about that!
March 9th, 2007 at 2:37 PMUsing
Holy crap. This means I may actually have a chance to accrue a few firearms post-graduation despite the impending presidential election of Hillary.
LC Staci GBOR:
What?
March 9th, 2007 at 2:51 PMUsing
Being pro 2nd Amendment. To me, anyone who is against this is against one of the things in our Constitution.
Someone told me that more people get killed by guns up in DC than they have in the war.
March 9th, 2007 at 2:53 PMUsing
THIS is EXACTLY why we need to elect conservative republicans(even RINOs) rather than Democraps.
March 9th, 2007 at 2:55 PMUsing
But I am concerned about a goverment tyranny. I am concerned about a government that would disarm its own citizens. I’m also concerned about a government that would take its people into war through deception, that would suspend Habeas Corpus for any group of people, that tacitly condones torture, that would wiretap without warrant the conversations of its citizens, that would fire federal prosecutors for arbitrary reasons, that would declassify information for political gain, that would send billions of taxpayers’ dollars in cash into a war zone with little accountability, and that would mouth platitudes about our soldiers but send them ito battle without body armor - and to dump them into festering conditions when they come home armless, legless, brain damaged.
Yes I’m concerned. These are the marks of governments under the like of Somoza, Salazar, Pinochet, Mao and Stalin.
And I’m glad you’re concerned too.
March 9th, 2007 at 2:57 PMUsing
And guess what Bos, it still works better then every other government on the face of the planet. In fact, The US is the oldest government on the face of the planet. We have survived because people other than pointy headed liberals actually DO things to correct problems rather than whine about it.
Funny that you mention it, but the governments of Somoza, Pinochet, Mao and Stalin didn’t have people beating down the fences to get in those countries. The two biggest in that list would kill you to keep you in.
I hope I don’t hurt your fweelings or anything but the millions of people who have snuck in or applied legally to get into this country for the past six years obviously don’t give a fuck what you think either.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:18 PMUsing
[…] Of course everybody is talking about it. This looks to me like the DC Court of Appeals has essentially struck down the entire DC gun ban with this decision. - Cold Fury In dissent Judge Karen Henderson, a Reagan appointee, countered that the Second Amendment did not properly apply to the case, as prior caselaw, statute, and the Constitution itself recognized that the District of Columbia is not a state subject to the jurisdiction of the Bill. - JURIST If the ban is indeed lifted, I plan to exercise my constitutional right to own a gun in the District of Columbia. I can’t wait to buy my first piece! - La Shawn Barber I have no doubt that this is going to the US Supreme Court. This is actually a very high risk gamble. IF the gun ban is struck down, it will have major implications. If not, no gun regulation will be deemed “unreasonable.” - John Lott We almost had to create a special category named “Fan-Freaking-TASTIC” especially for this post, since “Good News” doesn’t really do it justice. - Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler […]
March 9th, 2007 at 3:25 PMUsing
Blowswell sez:
Well, Blowswell, fortunately for you things aren’t the way you envision. Because my guess is that you’d currently be food to all sorts of bacteria, insects, and other fun organisms that return flesh to its more rudimentary form.
You’ve obviously bought the party line all the way. Unfortunately for you, the “party line” is nothing more than a pandering for votes. It’s the good ol’ “point out what they’ve ‘done wrong’ (whether provably wrong or not) without ever positing a viable alternative” tactic. Great for winning an election, horrible for actually surviving in the real world. But don’t take my word for it, ask those Cuban refugees just how wonderful Fidel keeps things down in Havana.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:30 PMUsing
Rats, bo-smell diverted my attention.
Lord, how long have we been waiting to hear that from a court. This could be huge indeed. But the best part is that this Court just gave a giant wedgie to all the GFW’s out there. And now what are the Dems gonna do with all their new anti-gun legislation???
I’ll put in my order for a full auto M1A1 Thompson .45, thank you.
Just because I can’t *sigh*
March 9th, 2007 at 3:34 PMUsing
boswell said:
Comparing our nation to that of Mao and Stalin?
You possibly cannot be that fucking brain damaged?
March 9th, 2007 at 3:39 PMUsing
http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf
This is a link to the decision.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:43 PMUsing
And yet, here you are, bloviating the DNC talking points with absolutely no risk to your wellbeing or personal freedom, nor that of your loved ones. You have not been denied a livelihood, a home, your freedom, your dignity for expressing these memes as disingenuous as they are. This constitutes tyranny? You mean the same tyranny that responds to the electorate’s will? You mean the same tyranny that allowed your Democrats to take control of Congress? the same tyranny that you are STILL able to VOTE out of office?
March 9th, 2007 at 3:58 PMGrow up.
Using
Now that they have become an expedient little political football, no need to spit on them and call them baby-killers, huh?
March 9th, 2007 at 4:03 PMUsing
Bos, you need to get off what you are smoking you idiot. To even begin to compare our government to what you listed is insane. The very same idiots who idiots who call this a war of deception turn a blind eye to the UN crimes and wanted this in the first place. Liberals want the government to take things away from people idiot…including rights.
Go fucking hug a tree or something.
March 9th, 2007 at 4:12 PMUsing
And the above post of mine is what happens when you start a comment, walk away for an hour to deal with marketing in business, come back and finish and don’t proofread. I’m calling it a night and going to go start my weekend and see if a few beers will help me stop shaking my head back and forth in disbelief that there are actual morons that think like this fool.
Bos, your soul mate was here yesterday.
March 9th, 2007 at 4:18 PMUsing
I guess you’ve forgotten that you were the one who introduced the word tyranny in your comment that I was replying to. I truncated the quote, but heres the rest of it
So of course you recognize that government tyranny exists in various degrees - not only in the totalitarian regimes that I mentioned. But you’re cherry picking what rights are precious, Of course the right to self defense is. But what about the right of Habus Corpus? What about the right of privacy in your personal conversations? What about the Senate’s right to confirm who serves as a federal prosecutor? What about the rights our wounded soldiers to decent treatment.
Or is gun control the only tyranny in your world?
March 9th, 2007 at 4:20 PMUsing
You are the one who implies that it is of a tyranny those things you listed previously, and I tell you that you STILL have the soap box, ballot box, you HAD the jury box, and you are wetting your pants over OUR RIGHTS to the cartridge box.
One of enough. But let me ask you, before I allow you to derail this thread into a debate about your DNC talking-points memo or “cherry-picked” rights:
March 9th, 2007 at 5:07 PMWhat issues do YOU have with the 2nd Ammendment?
Using
Without the 2nd Amendment, the others can be taken away at will, at any time, with little if any consequences to the takers.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:09 PMUsing
boswell sez:
ummm…take a look at the flag next to your handle bos. You live in Canada dopey!! y’all cain’t buy one of them there rocket launchers up there…..tain’t no second amendment thar ya idjit.
just thought I’d go into my redneck impersonation since you obviously consider us 2nd Amendment defenders ignorant rednecks already.
And while you’re at it bos, you may want to ask this question: How many of us legal gun owners have committed a gun crime?
just gimme the facts ma’am.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:17 PMUsing
I’ve a question for roswell. Being a denizen of the Great White North, why do you give a shit about a Washington DC court ruling on the 2nd Amendment that has nothing to do with you in particular or Canada in general?
If you want to bitch about something concerning firearms try venting on Canada’s multi-billion dollar gun registration boondoggle. Think about all that good money pissed away on a crap bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:19 PMUsing
How about the right for all those rights to apply to citizens instead of the muzzy raghead terrorists to whom you want them to apply - eh, you Canorkian faggot pussy?
(Gimme a box ‘o those offsets, Mope. Where this assmuch Blowswell is concerned, I’m gonna need a few more.)
March 9th, 2007 at 5:21 PMUsing
Your Extolliness,
This is precisely my point. Boswell speaks of his grievances which can by US citizens be brought to marketplace of ideas and can be debated. Without the 2A, all of his and our grievances are moot.
Yeah, I was going to say something about that bit of condescension, but I figured why waste my time? Just that in itself is evidence of his elitist libtard mentality.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:28 PMUsing
Gang of One sez:
It also outs him as the bigot that he is.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:32 PMUsing
Lord Spatula, you have read my mind … and stolen my thunder. This guy is upset that non-citizens as UNLAWFUL combatants are being denied rights — one’s they do not have. Goes the same for the eaves-dropping charge. But let’s take this fly apart one wing at a time, eh boys? I want him to tell us what issues he has with our 2A.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:35 PMGrahzny bratchny hasn’t the yarbles to smeck those words. I can slooshy him now, creeching bloody blue murder to Bog in His Heaven, a weepy devotchka of a droog …
Using
Boswhelp-
Let’s have a little constitutional law summary. Take notes please.
That would be a writ of Habeas Corpus. Do you know what that actually means? Guess what, It doesn’t apply to non-citizens, especially illegal combatants. Notice I made a point of highlighting illegal combatants. Why do I ask? Because I know your next idiotic talking-point will include the Geneva Conventions. They apply only to 1) Legal Combatants and 2) Legal Combatants on the battle field representing a signatory government to the conventions. Neither of which notably captured terrorists aren’t.
Another worn-out, moth-eaten meme. You don’t have any expectation of privacy if your telephone call, be it incoming or outgoing happens to be to a known or suspected terrorist organization. That’s been upheld in court. Whadda ya think, Dick Cheney is listening to you call 1-900-Beat-Yer-Meat?
What are you drooling about there? The executive branch nominates and the Senate confirms. Please restate your question with a finite answer, like this one: How many times did you rummage through mommie’s underwear drawer today?
Ooops, gotta run, Halliburton Transportation just dropped off a bus load of wounded vets behind Wal-Mart.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:44 PMUsing
My egg must be done.
It’s uncanny how quickly after being pwned!1!! a limpwristed liberal starts pulling out the technicality defense. Divert attention from their utterly futile position.
Perhaps those imprisoned in their 110-story graves were deprived of their right to habeas corpus.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:46 PMUsing
Uhhhhhh.. a question?
boswell has a canadian flag by his name..so, can someone tell me why anyone is listening to him in a discussion about the 2nd Ammendment?
March 9th, 2007 at 6:03 PMUsing
^^^^BTW boswell, gotcher’ launcher right here…
March 9th, 2007 at 6:04 PMUsing
He claims to be a temporary expat IIRC.
Probably one of the PhDs in interpretative dance or basket weaving that so tragically deserted the country in 2000, vowing to not even think about coming back until the BusHitler leaves power.
The country hasn’t been the same ever since. For one thing, it smells a lot cleaner.
March 9th, 2007 at 6:06 PMUsing
DAMMIT DAMMIT! DOUBLE DAMMIT ALL TO….
Amendment..not ammendment..
March 9th, 2007 at 6:07 PMUsing
He claims to be a temporary expat IIRC.Weeeellll, with all due lack of respect, Fuck Off boswell! Stay there! Happy Canooking!
Thanks for clearing that up Boss! Now if you could see your way to unfuck my spelling, that’d be good.
March 9th, 2007 at 6:10 PMUsing
Bos…..
There are no rights constitutionally for non-citizens unless they are LEGALLY on US territory.
Enemy combatants, whether legal or not, can be held as prisoners under the Geneva Accords until “cessation of hostilities”. That means until the war is over Bos.
The difficulties at Walter Reed are not indicative of the US military’s healthcare system. It is also totally unconnected with the VA which is a totally different organization. The VA is a near perfect example of what a universal healthcare system is…..incompetent. Military hospitals, in my rather considerable experience, are actually decent for the most part.
The 2nd Amendment allows us to preserve all the others and the Constitution itself.
Quit with the idiotic talking points unless you can back them up with facts.
Semper Fi
March 9th, 2007 at 6:34 PMUsing
BosSwill whines:
Did all this happen in Canada?
I mean if it was happening here in the U.S. wouldn’t BosSwill would have had some credible sources to back this whining up, right?
March 9th, 2007 at 6:54 PMUsing
Habeus Corpus has not been suspended. Trust me. I would know. It would be front-page news in my profession.
Which right? Which ‘conversations’? I have asked every frothing moonclown who tosses this chestnut into the fray. I have yet to receive an adequate explaination, but please…enlighten me.
March 9th, 2007 at 6:59 PMUsing
BTW, I hope you aren’t trying to invoke James Boswell. You are not that talented.
And bemoaning the mythical loss of civil rights here is amusing for someone staying in the Great White North. You ever spend some time examining what the RCMP is empowered to do to maintain “Peace, Order, and Good Government?” I suspect that you would wet your pants.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:08 PMUsing
I’m pretty certain from the smell in here that that happened a while ago.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:13 PMUsing
That’s what that is!!! I KNEW I cleaned the litterboxes last night!
March 9th, 2007 at 7:47 PMUsing
Ok, I’m doing the happy dance on this decision. I did shout for joy while driving home today and hearing this on the radio. The responses to Bos’s ignorance on writ of Habeas Corpus and his other comments were right on target, ya’ll beat me to it. Oh by the way I’m Canadian too and have to say that we are not all moonbats. Maybe it was the past 13 years in the U.S Marine Corps that made the difference and leaving Canada before the infamous Gun registration fiasco. Anyway, I’m looking forward to seeing this go to the USSC, a little bit worried too, they can still overturn this decision.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:51 PMUsing
My money’s on SCOTUS punts the case back without hearing it.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:15 PMUsing
Sometimes, deciding NOT to decide is a decision.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:23 PMUsing
Boreswell,
What- prithee- is this to you, other than an excuse to point out everything that offends your precious liberal sensibilities?
Misha’s post has nothing to do with Iraq, Katrina, the environment, or any of the exhausted (and exhaustively debunked) liberal memes you mentioned, like “lying us into war”, or however you put it.
What you’re doing is called “thread hijacking”, and it’s bad form. In the non-internet world, it’s called being an asshole.
What are you here for anyway- expecting to find kindred spirits?
March 9th, 2007 at 8:52 PMUsing
I never expected this from the ninth circuit…no way. But in the supreme court, where it may end. I would both fear and expect a civil war if any government attempts to disarm the American citizen. I know how I feel about it……..they get the bullets first.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:58 PMUsing
If this decision is appealed, and If this decision is upheld, what will it do to HR 1022, the “new and improved” “assault weapons” ban? I’ve heard on numerous occasions that getting any attention on the 2nd Amendement can cut both ways.
March 9th, 2007 at 9:03 PMUsing
Lance Corporal Gunsniper writes
Oh please! Darth Indecipherable embarrassed himself over exactly that same point yesterday. Let me explain again for you. I am an American. I currently work and live in Canada. Some of us actually do have a broader experience than sitting on a basement couch in Des Moines. Perhaps you believe that those little flags are put up there by the authors of the post, I dunno, but you clearly have little imagination.
It’s interesting. I actually enjoy an argument, but most replies contain little more than juvenile ad hominems that should embarrass anyone with any intellectual integrity. I’ll give Misha some credit here - at least he’s funny. The rest of the insults are just pathetic.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:29 PMUsing
Didn’t Clinton shitcan a bunch of prosectors? Isn’t that the boss’s prerogative?
BIW, Do you think the Supremes would really turn this one away? Like Misha said, it could be historical! Would they be able to resist putting their names on it?
March 9th, 2007 at 10:52 PMUsing
If everyone is so pathetic, Bos, then LEAVE.
end of line
March 9th, 2007 at 10:58 PMUsing
boswell sez:
Then argue man! God knows that there have been enough questions asked of you on this thread and you haven’t answered one….we HAVE to resort to insults, it’s the only way we can get you to reply.
Here, I’ll make it easy for you…Here’s a sampling of questions that you’ve only responded to with your OWN pathetic insults….answers please??
From #50:
From #33:
March 9th, 2007 at 11:00 PMUsing
You question my intellectual integrity? Fuck you!
Damn it. I did it again..
Uhhh no.. I believe they are put up there because you “live and work” in canada, and therefore when you post, it comes from canada. So when the interwebs see you in canada, it puts a flag from…wait for it… canada.
So bos…whats your story, did you move because of Bush?
March 9th, 2007 at 11:09 PMUsing
This from a Canorkian pussy who’s already proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that (s)he’s anything but intellectual?
Well, at least you appear to be using a spellchecker now, so it’s a start.
We prefer to deal in reality - unlike you, who gets his rocks off by pretending to have balls.
Not like you’re giving us much with which to work, pussbag. You’re nothing but a quasi-pseudo-intellectual wannabe who’s had his ass handed to him at every turn here.
Oh, and by the way: We haven’t annexed Quebec yet. You’re still a Canorkian fuckface.
March 9th, 2007 at 11:11 PMUsing
Why would we want to?
March 9th, 2007 at 11:19 PMUsing
If I may digress from the cluebatting for a moment, I downloaded the decision and was looking through it ( link in #27) (thanks Sig). It is very interesting to look at who filed amicus breifs on both sides and especially the political bodies they represent. Was you state AG on the right side?
March 9th, 2007 at 11:27 PMUsing
Annex Quebec… I wonder if the rest of Canada would be sad or happy to see them go. At least it means they can stop printing everything in Fwench.
March 9th, 2007 at 11:42 PMUsing
Well congrats to Des Moines for shaking you off like a case of the fleas
No, they’re probably based on your current IP, dickweed.
First and probably only honest answer of the night.
Wanna play, bitchtits?
March 10th, 2007 at 12:32 AMUsing
From what I’ve heard, yes they would, but if we did that, then we would have to add fwench to all our legal docs.
I’ll admit that I took fwench in HS and didn’t do to good, Spanish I’ve pick up through the guys I’ve worked with, although they liked to teach my the fun words and watch me squirm when I used them outside of work, which damn near got me killed once (thanks guys :tongue2_tb: ). I picked upt he little I know just because of spending a lot time with them and because it was something to do to take my mind off the repetitiveness of the work we were doing.
The school notices here are already printed in five languages,we don’t need another.
March 10th, 2007 at 12:33 AMUsing
The best outcome for this case may well be that the Supremes punt it back to the states, especially if by doing so they allow a lower court ruling enshrining the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment to stand. If the Supremes do take this case, do you think they would seriously entertain upholding this decision in its entirety, considering that most or all of 22,000 state, federal and local gun laws might well be overturned at the stroke of a pen? That’s a libertarian’s erotic fantasy, not reality. (It’s also likely one major reason why the Court hasn’t tackled a 2A case since Miller.)
Remember, you’ve got essentially the same five-vote majority on the Supreme Court that, in defiance of the Constitution:
– allowed McCain/Feingold to stand, despite the fact that it clearly violates the Constitutional maxim that “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech;”
– gave us the Kelo decision, which gutted property rights by expanding the powers of eminent domain, in the process potentially turning all of us into serfs;
– struck down a Missouri death penalty case not because the case was decided improperly or in violation of the defendant’s Constitutional rights…but because the consensus of foreign law held the death penalty to be unjust;
– and took it upon itself to rewrite both Presidential war powers and the Geneva Conventions in order to extend the protections of the Conventions to terrorists captured on foreign battlefields…who, under the terms of the Geneva Conventions, are specifically exempted from its protections as unlawful enemy combatants.
And that’s just four recent examples; I could easily find more just by searching the archives of this website alone.
My guess - fear, actually - is that if the Supremes take the case, we’ll end up with a 5-4 decision that either denied the individual rights interpretation of the 2A outright…or we’d get a decision that, while paying lip service to the individual right argument, would redefine “well-regulated” and “infringed” to justify or grandfather-in just about any gun law you can think of, no matter how restrictive or unjust.
Doubtless Scalia will write another beautifully stinging dissent, joined by Alito, Thomas and Roberts, but that’ll be cold comfort.
March 10th, 2007 at 12:45 AMUsing
I certainly hope not- if so, then those of us ‘behind enemy lines’ arenever going to get it through their thick heads. Only a USSC decision would make the ninth reconsider their opinion.
March 10th, 2007 at 1:08 AMUsing
According to Eugene Volokh’s extensive commentary on this decision Friday at his blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, besides this decision the Fifth Circuit Court also held to an individual rights interpretation of the 2A in its Emerson decision (which upheld a gun charge against a man with a domestic violence restraining order against him).
So that’s at least two federal circuit courts that view the 2A as an individual right, versus the Ninth’s collective rights ruling. Which is one reason why the Supreme Court may take this case…and Volokh theorized that were the Court to accept, they would be debating and perhaps deciding the case either shortly before or during the 2008 Presidential elections.
As if the upcoming election season weren’t already heated enough. On the other hand, can you imagine the backpedaling and spinning most of the candidates would have to do on the gun issue (especially Rudy Giuiliani, Hillary and Obama)?
March 10th, 2007 at 1:29 AMUsing
I not a lawyer (But I do play one on TV!), so if someone can clarify this, please do. It is my understanding that the Tenth Amendment clearly states that the rights of the states are predicated upon the rights of the Union. In other words, the states can enact any laws they wish for their particular state-PROVIDED-those laws are not in conflict with Federal laws already enacted. If the Federal Gubmint makes a law that says “….The right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”, how then, in keeping with the Tenth Amendment, can the individual state restrict in anyway the Federal Mandate? Can’t this be challenged? Or have I got it all mixed up?
March 10th, 2007 at 8:44 AMUsing
The western provinces would stand up and cheer. It would not be good for us. We already have too many whiners to deal with in this country already.
I’m still waiting for my answers, ‘boswell’. Don’t waste your time at the KOStards site ot the DNC, they only give you the meme, not the answer, as I’m sure you have discovered, to your sorrow. Now why don’t you run along and play in traffic, or something?
March 10th, 2007 at 10:25 AMUsing
#74- Ten Ten
In short, yup. The 10th says essentially all rights not specifically delineated to the federal government remain within the jurisdiction of the states and people respectively.
The Federalist founders were very concerned of exactly what the federal government has become today. The 10th was included in the Bill of Rights to keep an over-reaching federal government from encroaching into any government function rightly within the purview of the states.
Today we find literally hundreds of federal programs/legislation in stark violation of this amendment. The always friendly bench can be counted on to trample state’s right as needed.
Zackly Bear. That’s the whole point this ruling is working towards. Reestablishing the intent of the 2nd amendment in light of the twisting of the 10th by a GFW bench that has allowed state and municipalities to constructively ban firearm ownership. This decision is very encouraging as the federal bench clearly outlined the INTENT of the 2nd, correctly.
Extra points on that on for ya’ Bro. :clap_tb:
March 10th, 2007 at 10:50 AMUsing
#61 Maxxdog -
Yes, it is. The controversy, such as it is, appears to be over the President’s ability to make appointments to fill those positions. Bush has been timing a lot of appointments for when the Senate is in recess, so that they get to serve in the position as a temporary for a while without the Senate getting to filibuster them.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:58 AMUsing
How about Jose Padilla, an American, who was held for three years in Chrleston without charge and unable to see a lawyer? Or Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen who was held for three years in Norfolk Virgina without charge and unable to see a lawyer? Habeus corpus ws suspended for them. Or is it ok for a government as long as it’s to a few people?
See above
Read sections 218 and 251 of the Patriot Act. It permits agents of the government to record your conversations based solely under the label of antiterrorism by application to a judge but for no requirement of specificity.
Read my posts. Tell me where I’ve expressed any issue with the 2nd. It was referenced because that is the only right that some people find “precious”.
Perhaps the most digusting comment of the entire thread. Lance Corporal Jackboot(how appropriate)makes light of our brave injured troops. And in case anyone points this out, this site has not posted once of the shameful events at Walter Reed. Support the roops indeed!
March 10th, 2007 at 11:40 AMUsing
Doesn’t apply to enemy combatants, dumb fuck. Won’t apply to you, either, seeing as you’re still a Canorkian pussy.
Since we’re not terrorists, unlike your butt-buddy honeyboys in Al-Qaida, we’re not terribly concerned.
Why are you?
How about answering his question, fuckface? You do know how to answer a simple question, don’t you? I mean, they did teach you that in Canorkian Romper Room, didn’t they, eh?
Well, to use vernacular you’d understand - if you don’t like it, take off, hoser.
‘Course, that decision could always be made for you, y’know.
March 10th, 2007 at 12:27 PMUsing
There’s no need to prove you’re a moron. We already got it.
March 10th, 2007 at 1:41 PMUsing
Very Good, Chester. Now, find me the legal precedent that shows that citizens detained as enemy combatants still have all the rights and freedoms that any other citizen would fully expect to apply to them. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Perhaps some American citizens wearing uniforms of the wermacht picked up on the battlefield in Europe? An American citizen who was found under conditions indicating cooperation with the ruling class of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? What? What’s that? You can’t find them? Then why should we treat American citizens on the other side of the battlefield in Afghanistan any differently? Padilla’s case raises questions, but with the world being what it is today, I’ll grant the government some leeway, considering that he was allegedly up to some pretty horrible things, and may know other things that may not be in our collective interest to have made public at this time. I’m am quite certain that the same people howling about his incarceration are the one who would howl the loudest if he were let go and allowed to complete his to-do list, or never picked up in the first place. If there were a regular, systematic practice of picking citizens up of the streets of America and holding them indefinately, then your blather would contain the ingredient of merit. Bring that one back when you have something, sport. Otherwise, leave it in your kit bag to share with the loons at KOS.
And? Your conversation is no more or less private if the government gives specific detail on why the wiretap is for antiterrorism purposes. For that matter, ANY wiretap authorized by a judge ‘violates’ the ‘privacy’ of your telephone conversation, REGARDLESS of the reason stated, whether one of the parties is under investigation for organized crime, murder, wire fraud, conspiracy, or excessive parking tickets. The points that are the elephant in the room that your stated objection studiously ignores are these:
1. Interceptions of telephone and other electronic media by government and law enforcement have been permitted in this country for DECADES. Your outrage at the ‘loss of privacy in private communications’ which apparently dated back to the time you first realized that government had this power will have as much impact as a fart in a hurricane. But stamp your foot if you must.
2. These laws were established by lawmakers; they didn’t spontaneouls appear on the President’s desk like some eeeevvviiillll executive order, coldly calculated to allow jackbooted thugs to break into your house at night, steal all your rights, and to disappear you if you complain.
3. Unless you are frequently conversing with members of known terrorist organizations, the odds of your ‘right to privacy in your phone conversation’ is not terribly likely to be trampled upon. I realize that it must be quite a shock to a self-important twit such as yourself, but the government has better things to do than listen in on your call to Aunt Hattie to request her peach pie recipe.
As for JB’s indulgence of your obvious mental condition, perhaps he shouldn’t have attempted the use of sacasm with someone possessing no sense of humor that they are aware of. FYI, “LC” means “Loyal Citizen”. Perhaps I should continue to let you encourage your inner ASS that came with your ASSumption, I couldn’t let you continue to walk around with the “Hello, My Name Is Dumbass” sticker your proudly affixed to your own forehead. It detracts too much from the fact that your fly is open, you missed a few buttons, and your socks don’t match. When you feel like being a chew-toy some more, y’all feel free to come back. Don’t be a stranger.
March 10th, 2007 at 2:52 PMUsing
Apparently, the DailyKos “Dicktionary” doesn’t have an entry for “hyperbole”, R6…
March 10th, 2007 at 3:25 PMUsing
Blackiswhite writes
Precisely because the are American. That’s what being a citizen of this country granted thembefore this government, whether you like it nor not. How are we the people to know whether that was the case or not if they are not allowed access to a lawyer and are not charged with any crime, and are held for three years that way?
Well duh. The difference was that a warrant was required and probable cause had to be established. Now simply an application to a judge with no specifics whatsoever is all the feds need under the Patriot Act.
There’s no need to state the obvious. Of course they were established by lawmakers; Senators and Representatives who didn’t even read the bill. They are just as complicit as the President. I don’t, know whether you realize it, but the House and the Senate are part of the government.
No, I don’t have a sense of humor when sick jokes about our maimed soldiers are made. Do you?
Lance Corporal Guida writes
Back for more? You really shouldn’t. I’m much better at this than you.
March 10th, 2007 at 6:20 PMUsing
Ouch!
March 10th, 2007 at 6:32 PMThem thar is fightin’ words!
Using
You know, BlahSmell, I could accept that you had some skill at debate, if you had ever answered the questions that BlackisWhite (and others) have posed to you.
Now, we know the truth. You are nothing but a shit spewing troll who has no knowledge of what you blather on about.
First. By taking up arms against the United States, (by acting as an agent of a foreign group to cause terrorist acts within the territory of this country, ie armed rebellion), Jose Padilla has voluntarily forfeited the protections of the Constitution. His actions are no different than, say, you flying off to Iraq and joining your friends in the co-called “insurgency” and shooting at Coalition forces. If you are grabbed in the aftermath of a firefight, and start waving your US passport around screaming “I want my lawyer”, too fucking bad. If you’re lucky, they’ll just drop your silly ass in Gitmo and forget about you even being there.
Those same troops can, if they so desire, stand you up against a wall and put a bullet in your brainpan, and it is perfectly legal under the Geneva Conventions.
Or they can simply turn you over to the Iraqi police, who can do the same thing. Again, in perfect compliance with international agreements.
Now, keeping in mind that the Patriot Act was passed by congress, (I still think that means that group is the opposite of Progress, but I digress), did you vote for your Representative and Senators? Did your legislators vote for the Act? If the ones you didn’t vote for won election, why was that?
If you didn’t vote, then you are part of the problem, and have no voice at all in complaining about the whole thing.
But, suppose you say, “I am out of the country working, and I don’t have a representative!” Bullshit. Ever hear of absentee ballots? Our troops overseas use them all the time. (Except, of course, when the Loony Leftwing Liberals try to suppress them, as they did in Florida in 2000.)
But, suppose you say, “I voted for a good progressive candidate, he didn’t win!” This is an indication that your candidate is too out of touch with the people he/she is supposed to be representing. (You will notice the word is “representative”, this means that the person elected is suppposed to “represent” the people of their district. This is why we do the whole election thingy, you know. If you don’t represent your district, you just don’t get elected.)
Oh, yeah, the whole wiretapping thing. Hmm… Lessee here. You were whinging about listening in on conversations between persons in the United States and those outside the US. Sorry to tell you this, but your privacy ends at the border. If your conversations cross the US border, then you have no expectation of privacy.
Sorry, toots, that’s the way it is.
Personally, I have some very mixed feelings on the Patriot Act, as I have stated here before. With the current administration, while I am not especially happy about it, but, I am willing to tolerate it. With the previous administration, or under the administrations that would have been formed by the losers of the 2000 and 2004 elections, I would be extremely worried. One of the positives of the way that this administration has handled the Act is that they have been open about who they have picked up. Previous administrations have had a bad habit of trying to hide what they had done, and why they did it. And then lying about it. With, it should be noted, the full compliance of the media establishment.
At least the thing has a time limit.
Now, answer this simple question, or shut the fuck up. “What do you have against the Second Amendment?”
This makes a minimum of three times you have been directly asked this same question, and you have yet to give an answer to it.
You know what that says to me? You can’t do this at all, baby.
March 10th, 2007 at 7:17 PMUsing
The second amendment, by far the most precious of our God given rights……for human nature being what it is, as our founding fathers wisely took to heart. Tme most valuable revelation being that a balance of power must be maintained, whether between all branches of government or between the people and the government. I trust no one, Boswell, certainly not you, even less our government, to seek my well being….as I determine it. And all people, despite vociferous denials from the gun haters, know damn good and well, and fear for a good reason an armed populace. I do not choose selectively as has been done in this thread…….
March 10th, 2007 at 7:29 PMUsing
Bootswell, Methinks thou has just been Pwn3d! That’ll teach you to piss off Guido!
March 10th, 2007 at 7:29 PMUsing
Execellent way to dodge the question that was put to you, Bosley. Yaser Hamdi wasn’t picked up lounging aroung the lobby of the Karachi Hilton, genius. He was found on a field of battle, dressed like an enemy, and if I recall, he was also armed. Under those cicumstances, I really wouldn’t give a tinker’s damn if he won the DAR Godd Citizen Award in high school. He was correctly classified, and held in accordance with that classification. End of story. I already admitted that the circumstances are different for Padilla. At the same time, it is an isolated case, and we aren’t talking about the president of local chamber of commerce. The guy was a thug, and given his history, the allegations are believable, so in the real world of imperfect justice, but a system still better than you’ll find anywhere else, Uncle gets a conditional pass. Now if you’d care to answer the question put to you, may be we still have something to discuss on this particular topic.
Which still ignores the fact that you’re trying to move the goal posts. Perhaps you forgot this little gem that tumbled out of your fingers earlier:
I’ve already demonstrated that your argument didn’t have two legs to stand on, so now you want to jump forward and talk about the standards by which Uncle gets the right to listen in. Here’s a thought that seems to have eluded you: The Warrant standards are applied in cases when the government wants to prosecute; antiterrorism means we want information to prevent bad things from happening…different result, different standard.
You know this for a fact? I don’t. Having actually worked in government, I can conceed that some will be corrupt, incompetent, lecherous, and stupid. Even most of them will scan reports on the full text prepared by their staff members, who highlight impacts on the constituents. Knowing this, I’ll save time and give your comment the short shrift it deserves.
He was chenneling the limp-wristed hand-wringers on the left, who would be sptting on those same soldiers if they didn’t think screaming “Walter Reed!” at the tops of their lungs somehow conferred some sort of political gain on their otherwise intellectually bankrupt stance.
No, you’re not. But I give you credit for getting back up after you get knocked down. That puts you in a slightly higher fun quotient than our usual degree of troll.
March 10th, 2007 at 7:43 PMUsing
Goody, I didn’t miss all the cluebatting.
Bos spews
You obviously didn’t read all of BiW’s post or you would have caught his reference to the American citizens serving in the Wermacht and to Tokyo Rose. They were traitors. Bearing arms in the service of any foreign country or committing treason revokes your citizenship. Got a passport? Read the declarations on it. Therefore Jose Padilla revoked his own citizenship when he bore arms in the service of Al Quaeda (You know, that pesty treason thing). Enemy combatants, legal or illegal, have no writ of habeus corpus right, nor do they have right to due process. In fact, by the Geneva Convention they can be summarily executed. (That means on the spot, no trial, no nuthin’). They should consider themselves damned lucky that it was the US that captured them, and not say a country with a little less respect for human life.
I’ll also reiterate, LC stands for Loyal Citizen, not Lance Corporal. The proper abbreviation for Lance Corporal is LCpl. Trust me on this, I was one.
March 10th, 2007 at 7:45 PMUsing
I’ll respond to you Ten-Ten, because the Lance Corporal obviously doesn’t read. If he did, he would have found three times (coincidentally) my responses:
But I am concerned about a goverment tyranny. I am concerned about a government that would disarm its own citizens.
But you’re cherry picking what rights are precious, Of course the right to self defense is.
Read my posts. Tell me where I’ve expressed any issue with the 2nd.
Well, that was easy. Next?
March 10th, 2007 at 7:48 PMUsing
Simply, Boswell……no caveats, no conditions….do you or do you not favor my individual right to own a gun, to bear arms?
March 10th, 2007 at 7:50 PMUsing
Boswell:
Does the Second Amendment articulate an INDIVIDUAL right?
Why or why not?
March 10th, 2007 at 8:13 PMUsing
By swearing an allegiance to a foreign power, he is legally no longer considered a US citizen. There is already precedent.
(Quicker, easier restatement of crunchie’s statement. Even an expat working in Canada should understand.)
March 10th, 2007 at 8:19 PMUsing
You missed a few of my favorite parts of the ruling:
We don’t have to trade our ugly guns for flintlocks.
The ‘Militia’ is one reason for the arms, not THE reason.
Legitimate use includes self-defense. Which is relatively difficult if your guns are always unloaded in a safe.
I’m gonna spend a while in the law library next week to see what gun laws are left in DC. Hopefully they forgot something and they’ll by default have VT style CCW.
March 10th, 2007 at 9:58 PMUsing
Bos,
Quit holding your farts in, they go straight to your brain and that how you get all those shitty thoughts.
You bitch and moan about freedom to talk on your phone unlistend to.. I can count on my hands the amount of coutries that you can walk in the street freely.. even if I was missing 6 fingers.
Stop bashing your country up, or burn your passport and stay in canada or better yet.. move to gaza, they seem to be killing each other all day.
You pee you panties about the goverment daring to wiretap someone’s phones.. yet you blatantly dare mess with the 2nd amandment.. is that not my right ?
In matters of national security, the goverment may do all it deem’s necesary to uphold the security of our country.
You have such CHUTZPA to bring up 2 whole fucking asswipes as a example of the goverment trampling upon our rights…
The Palastinian authority executes at least 10 people daily.. where is YOUR outrage ?
At least 1,000 women are killed daily in honor killings.. where is YOUR outrage..
Hopefully me n crunchie wioll get our asses to the range to invoke our 2nd ammandment rights..
March 10th, 2007 at 10:06 PMUsing
Lance Corporal Caveman (god, the names you chose are soo good!), what part of my posts don’t you understand? I thinks it’s tyrrany to try to disarm the public, I think the right to self defence is precious, I have no issue with the 2nd. Why do need to have things spelled out for you ( I can guess). Yes, I favor an individual’s right to own a gun and to bear arms. I have not even hinted at another position. Mind you, I do draw the line at nuclear weapons. Do you?
March 11th, 2007 at 12:04 AMThis is getting a little tedious. Any heavy hitters here?
Using
I enjoyed pulling the rope in an M109 SP Howitzer and being a gunner on an M548 during Desert Storm.
What say you roswell?
March 11th, 2007 at 1:45 AMUsing
Which is why the 2nd is so precious.
These buttmonkeys are so busy trying to push through non-binding resolutions that they don’t have time to read bills that could really be important.
The amount of time it takes to pass a law that really does something and doesn’t restate a law already passed 50 years ago (but looks good in the press), we could cut congress down to 3 months a year…if that.
March 11th, 2007 at 1:49 AMUsing
I dunno thar, boswell, whut point was y’all makin’ here on comment #2 on this here thread, what with yur condee-scendin’ redneck talk about gittin’ yourself one of them thar bazookeys and all ?:
Now you’re beginning to understand how we feel. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass.
March 11th, 2007 at 3:05 AMUsing
Comments by boswell CANADA
I think you certainly have hinted at your attitude. That first statement pretty much sums up your issues with 2A.
(Fixed it—B.)
March 11th, 2007 at 7:27 AMUsing
boswell, you are an idiot. Stay in Caniduh, and you will improve all of North America.
Ex-pat my ass. That phrase would imply that somewhere along the line you have been a patriot to be an ex- from.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:37 AMUsing
Oh, MANAGEMENT!
Someone needs to set DST manually this year.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:40 AMUsing
I still want an answer to my question boswell…Are you or are you not in Canada because of Bush?
Did you abandon this country because Bush was elected?
March 11th, 2007 at 8:44 AMUsing
boswell, I believe you started things off on the wrong foot by coming in, as pointed out by Mike M, and stating in a Deliverance-esque way:
You sounded EXACTLY like some of the panty-wearing GFW trolls we’ve had in the past.
Since you’re not a regular poster here and most people don’t know how you feel on such a touchy issue, you might want to make sure that people know your stance on an issue, up front, before jumping straight into sarcasm. It’ll save a lot of :wallbash_tb:, on BOTH sides, in the future.
Just a suggestion.
Now, can we all just hug and make up? As the esteemed and venerable Rodney King once said: “Can’t we all just get along?”
:smoke_tb:
March 11th, 2007 at 8:56 AMUsing
no.
March 11th, 2007 at 9:03 AMUsing
Boswell, this may have been in jest… but the problem is, that’s exactly how the GFW libs see us gun owners.
March 11th, 2007 at 9:18 AMUsing
My buddy over at COLD FURY says it WAYYYYYYYYYY better than I.
March 11th, 2007 at 2:07 PMUsing
Finally…a straight answer. Better late than never. And by the way, Boswell…..I never was a lance corporal…..try MM3……So wrong again.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:15 PMUsing
[…] down in this dispute. Speaking of the devil, Muttya has had a series of interesting posts regarding the 2nd Amendment and now involving the First Amendment. I know I need to stop linking to them, but this time […]
March 13th, 2007 at 2:30 PMUsing
[…] Dammit, This Could be HUGE! We almost had to create a special category named “Fan-Freaking-TASTIC” especially for this post, since “Good News” doesn’t really do it justice. It would appear that a court of the land, the DC Circuit Court to be specific, actually took the time to, you know, read the 2nd Amendment [all emphases in the quotes ours]: To […] […]
March 14th, 2007 at 8:28 PMUsing
[…] Dammit, This Could be HUGE! We almost had to create a special category named “Fan-Freaking-TASTIC” especially for this post, since “Good News” doesn’t really do it justice. It would appear that a court of the land, the DC Circuit Court to be specific, actually took the time to, you know, read the 2nd Amendment [all emphases in the quotes ours]: To […] […]
March 14th, 2007 at 11:56 PMUsing
I don’t have the time (or patience) to read through the 111 prior comments to see if anyone has raised this point about the dissenting opinion. The judge who dissented from the decision striking down D.C.’s gun ban did so on the basis that D.C. is not a state, hence the Second Amendment does not apply to it. Of course, the Second Amendment does not refer to a right of the states, but rather to “the right of the People” to keep and bear arms. But if her proposition is accepted, I would think that the other rights of the People set out in the Bill of Rights would also not apply to D.C. Personally, I would not mind, since that would mean the Washington Toast and all the other D.C. libtards could be forced to shut up (plus I don’t live there!). But I somehow don’t think the D.C. Liberal Establishment would want to go down that road!
March 18th, 2007 at 11:10 AMUsing