@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:So, what's your gut feeling on how the Court will decide?
It will apply the 2nd Amendment to curtail the power of the States.
In
HELLER, the court as much as told us that.
It said that it is a right of "all Americans".
In
HELLER, the court upheld its finding in 1990 in
VERDUGO :
"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.”
HELLER:
" * * * We start therefore with a strong presumption
that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually
and belongs to all Americans.
* * * Putting all of these textual elements together,
we find that
they guarantee the individual right
to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation".
[All emphasis has been added by David.]
The Court knows that there r over 300,000,000 Americans
and that thay do not all live in Washington D.C.
I think that pretty much tells us what the Court will say on Monday.
The case at bar was crafted to be a mirror image reflection
of
HELLER, so that in effect, the only question presented
to the Court is whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the States.
The history that it
DOES, is very clear
from the spoken words, on the record, in each House of Congress
when the 14th Amendment was enacted by the authors
of the 14th Amendment in each house, who explicitly said so
and said that the purpose of the 14th Amendment
was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States, after the Civil War.
The pleadings b4 the Court are limited to possessing guns at home,
but if the USSC applies the 2nd Amendment against State Government power,
then its own terms that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
will be directly considered in all future gun litigation in all courts.
In
HELLER, the USSC cited with approval
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 lovingly added by David]
David
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace