The conservative majority that struck down Washington, D.C.'s, handgun ban in 2008 appears poised to stretch the Second Amendment further. The hourlong session Tuesday will let justices test-fire arguments in a case in which the reasoning could be as intriguing as the outcome.Considering the last major case they decided put billions of corporate dollars into campaigns, I don't have high hopes for this decision either.
For gun owners and lawmakers, the case called McDonald v. City of Chicago presents one bottom line: If the court agrees that the Second Amendment covers state and local governments, as seems likely, some but not all gun restrictions will be blown away.
For constitutional scholars, the court's means may be as important as its ends. In order to eliminate Chicago's gun ban, court conservatives could end up overturning a 137-year-old precedent that's hindered the expansion of new rights.
With the case so crucial, the sidelines are jammed. Forty-nine amicus briefs have flooded the court, representing groups ranging from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to specialists in 17th-century English history.
The attorneys general for Florida, Texas, Alaska and 34 other states have urged the court to strike down Chicago's gun ban. So have a majority of members of Congress, and individual prosecutors from 34 California counties.
"The people's right to arms is inextricably tied to the equally fundamental right to defend oneself, to fight to save one's own life," Fresno County District Attorney Elizabeth A. Egan and her colleagues argue.
If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed. -- Benjamin Franklin
Monday, March 1, 2010
Going Ballistic On Gun Control
The Supreme Court takes up local gun control laws in oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could not only overturn a number of state and local gun control laws in the country, but could theoretically overturn a post-Civil War precedent.
Anybody who actively uses the 2nd amendment as a defense for keeping concealed, 15+ round, semi-automatic killing machines is intellectually dishonest.
ReplyDeleteIf all the handguns in the country were destroyed tomorrow then we would be safer. Arguments against that fact are pure fantasy.
Now while I agree we don't need anyone not in a police uniform to be carrying around SMG's and the like to say throwing away hand guns would make us all safer is fucking ignorant. Sorry there's not other way to sugarcoat that, I could say intellectually challenged or head up your ass (that's a given at this point) or even intellectually dishonest...but that quite frankly was one of the dumbest things I think anyone could read on the internet, and there's a lot of stupid shit out there (won't have to look far in this blog <_<)
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of disillusion little world do you live in? I'm sure it has rainbows and puppy dogs and chocolate rivers and a little leprechaun that gives everyone money (Had to throw in a redistribution of wealth reference for you libs.)
Just because no one has a gun doesn't mean that you are therefore safer. You can still be stabbed or hit with a ball bat (which you obviously need.) it just means that we will have people coming up with other ways in which to kill each other. For every person that has a gun for the wrong reasons there are hundreds that have them for personal reasons, like protection or recreation.
Normally I try to stay away from the name calling but unfortunately that commented needed a reply with just that. You're probably the same person who believes that we don't need peace through strength.