Anybody hear what is going on with this case? Seems to me that the longer it takes, the more favorable it is for the anti-gun crowd.

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

The decision should come out this month - perhaps even tomorrow.

I don't think there is any concern about it becoming more favorable for the anti- crowd.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I think it's timely to state that I don't think I've ever seen a more inaccurate prediction...

I'm eating crow right now (and enjoying every bit of it!).

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

Very interesting. Here's an article on the decision.

Supreme Court asserts broad gun rights | csmonitor.com

Some points to note:

Scalia, writing for the majority, appears to have added language to the 2A's own rationale for its existence:

So the Court appears to have decided that the Second Amendment guarantees (with some limitations) the right to keep and bear arms not only for the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia, but also for the purpose of self-defense. With which, purely as a matter of interpretation, I disagree and it seems to me the law could have been struck down without that language and should have been if that is what the Court thought appropriate. Scalia is legislating from the bench here.

Worth noting as well is that only some parts of the D.C. law were struck down.

In other words, while a blanket ban on ownership of handguns, or on keeping them in condition to be readily used, is unconstitutional, other restrictions might not be, including the registration of weapons (which remains in force in the D.C. law).

Also:

Well, he's utterly full of it. Here again, the Court is legislating from the bench, rewriting the purpose for which the Second Amendment was included in the Constitution, which is obviously military. At that time, the standard military small arm was a smoothbore or rifled muzzle-loaded musket with fixed bayonet. If we were to keep with the intent of the Amendment, it would guarantee a right to "keep and bear" (which does not necessarily mean "own") weapons of similar military utility today, meaning fully-automatic rifles, body armor, hand grenades and grenade launchers, machine guns, and similar arms, not hunting rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Or certainly not just those non-military arms.

Ah, well, the Court has decided, and this is not the first time it's legislated from the bench. But one might at least expect Scalia to be truer to his stated principles than this.

After the Constitution was written and when the country was first founded, did the government go around asking all people who are not in a militia to turn in their guns else join a milita? No. As such, your view of the 2nd amendment is totally wrong.



Let's apply your 'logic' to the 1st amendment. Back then, there was no television, radio, or internet. So does the 1st amendment only apply to hand cranked printing presses and books?

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

I think this was a great decision. Striking down a universal ban but not gun registration laws, all while not severely limiting it to DC only. I've gotta congratulate the Supreme Court on a job well done.

The most important aspect, as I see it, is one of possession within the limits of the city. Even in ones' own home, this was illegal in DC prior to this ruling.

Let's be honest here. Not too many people strap on a sidearm before they leave the house, or even want to. Concealed carry in DC was never the issue here. But the ability for a resident of DC to have a firearm in his home, when it was previously a crime to do so, is fucking huge...

Note that it also strikes down laws that require a gun owner to have the gun disassembled or have a trigger lock on it. This is great as those measures defeat the purpose of having a gun for self-defense.