Reply
Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:35 am
The US Supreme Court has established the legal precedent that:
‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment,
and by the First and Second Amendments, and
to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth
and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons
who are part of a national community
or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection
with this country to be considered part of that community.”
US v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990)
D.C. v. HELLER 554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)
[All emphasis has been added by David.]
In recognition thereof, and after quoting the foregoing precedent,
the Court has gone on to say that:
"We start therefore with a strong presumption
that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually
and belongs to all Americans." D.C. v. HELLER (supra)
[All emphasis has been added by David.]
The USSC knows that there r over 300,000,000 Americans
and that thay do not all reside in the District of Columbia.
The Supreme Court goes on to say, later in its decision:
"Putting all of these textual elements together,
we find that they guarantee the individual right
to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." D.C. v. HELLER (supra)
[All emphasis has been added by David.]
At the end of this month, in the case of
McDonald and National Rifle Association of America v. Chicago
the USSC will render its decision qua whether the 2nd Amendment
curtails the powers of the State and local legislatures, being applied
thereto by the 14th Amendment.
The legal precedent has been established by the HELLER case
as to WHAT the 2nd Amendment means
(i.e., the individual rights of the citizens defensively to keep and bear arms).
Insofar as incorporating the 2nd Amendment to curtail the powers
of State and local governments, will the liberal minority
(John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Sonia Sotomayor, & Stephen Breyer)
dispassionaltely pursue the process of analysis qua whether
the Bill of Rights binds the States,
or
will the liberals devote their opinions to an imaginary re-litigation
of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment itself, digging in their leftist heels,
resisting progress toward individual freedom ?
Will the liberals' analytical processes be affected
by their distaste for the freedom-laden content of the 2nd Amendment?
Must the liberals be dragged, kicking and screaming
into the 21st Century of progress toward personal liberty ?
We will know in about 3 weeks.
WHATAYATHINK ?
David
@OmSigDAVID,
It's worrisome. I read an analysis a couple of months ago that ended with the following (with which I agree):
Quote:It is a virtual certainty, of course, that any decision that emerges is likely to divide the Court deeply, as Heller did. Thus, the decision in the case is likely to be one of the last to emerge from the Court near Term’s end.
@Irishk,
Monday, June 28, is the last day of the session. I expect it then, or less likely
on Friday June 25. That is how thay handled the
HELLER case in 2008, as we expected.
Immediately after a pro-freedom decision in
McDONALD, there is expected a flurry of pro-freedom summary judgments
in other Federal Courts that are awaiting the
McDONALD decision qua 2nd Amendment related litigation on their dockets.
David
I understand that in the case of
SYKES and THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION v. SACRAMENTO
the Federal Judge on whose docket this cases reposes
has announced that upon the event of the USSC incorporating
the 2nd Amendment against the States, he will grant summary judgment
in favor of freedom to carry firearms in the streets of California.
From his Court, the appeal goes to the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,
which has already taken a pro-freedom position on the 2nd Amendment in the NORDYKE case.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
i heard they're going to vote to scrap the constitution entirely, and replace it with these instructions for how to use a revolving door
Revolving Security Door User Instructions.
"Follow these simple steps each time you use the doors,"
"To enter the secure space move directly into the revolving door compartment."
"The door will start automatically. One person per compartment. Keep hands, feet and bags away from the edges of the door."
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:i heard they're going to vote to scrap the constitution entirely, and replace it with these instructions for how to use a revolving door
Revolving Security Door User Instructions.
"Follow these simple steps each time you use the doors,"
"To enter the secure space move directly into the revolving door compartment."
"The door will start automatically. One person per compartment. Keep hands, feet and bags away from the edges of the door."
I guess there is humor in there somewhere.
@OmSigDAVID,
not really, but let's face it, it's a pretty good document, and probably a lot less controversial than the current one
i think it's a good move, i wish i was on the court
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:not really, but let's face it, it's a pretty good document, and probably a lot less controversial than the current one
i think it's a good move, i wish i was on the court
I don 't wanna go back to work, but I 'd have to take that job, if it were offered,
to propagate personal liberty thru out the nation,
as intended by the Founders when thay wrote the Constitution, as an instrument of Freedom.
David
If thay play it straight,
does that mean that thay r no longer liberals ?
Will the liberals narrow their focus to attend to the question of incorporation ?
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:I understand that in the case of
SYKES and THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION v. SACRAMENTO
the Federal Judge on whose docket this case reposes
has announced that upon the event of the USSC incorporating
the 2nd Amendment against the States, he will grant summary judgment
in favor of freedom to carry firearms in the streets of California.
From his Court, the appeal goes to the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,
which has already taken a pro-freedom position on the 2nd Amendment in the NORDYKE case.
David
In view of the pending
SYKES case,
the recent legislative consideration of outlawing open carry of guns
is about to be nullified, unless the legislature approves
freedom of the citizens to carrry their guns
concealed.
David
Here is a nice case to which the USSC has cited with approval
in D.C. v. Heller.
The USSC says the following:
In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court
construed the Second Amendment as
protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore
struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.
Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause
[i.e.: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"]
of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in
the prefatory clause, [i.e., the militia clause]
in continuity with the English right:
“The right of the whole people,
old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only,
to keep and bear arms of every description,
and not such merely as are used by the militia,
shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon,
in the smallest degree;
and all this for the important end to be attained:
the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia,
so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.
Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant
to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,
originally belonging to our forefathers,
trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked
sons and successors, re-established by the revolution
of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists,
and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”
[All emphasis has been lovingly added by David]
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace