Supreme Court grants cert on D.C. Second Amendment case; Update: Electoral repercussions? Update: A federalist solution?
posted at 1:30 pm on November 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Quite possibly the first time we’ve had to run the nuke thumbnail twice in the same day. But richly deserved in both cases.
Two hundred seventeen years after ratification, we finally get to find out what “well regulated militia” means.
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” in nearly 70 years…
The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday’s announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.
It was a foregone conclusion that they’d agree to hear the case. These are the best odds we could hope for: Two new conservative Bush appointees on the Court joining the two Reagan appointees and Clarence Thomas. Why, I haven’t felt as confident in victory since eight Republican appointees heard the, erm, Casey case.
Fearless prediction: Get ready to give up those guns, kids, because this one’s going the other way. And you know damned well whom you’ll have to thank. The Gipper!
Update: No matter how it turns out next June, it’s going to be a thunderbolt in the middle of the campaign. Ironically, the GOP losing this case would be a huge boon to gun-grabber Rudy, assuming he’s the nominee, since it would sharpen the focus on his promise to appoint conservatives like Scalia and Thomas, who share Rudy’s own, ahem, originalist philosophy. If you’ve got a bunch of social cons thinking of sitting home on grounds that there’s no difference between him and Hillary, this will do wonders to galvanize them. Of course, if the case comes out our way, it’ll work the same magic for the left. Which means this will be the second election in eight years which the Court may play a significant role in deciding.
Update: You never know how broadly or narrowly the Court’s going to address an issue when it comes before them, but it sounds like they’re going to hit this one squarely. According to SCOTUSblog, the question the Court has set for itself is as follows:
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
Update: Some of our commenters are despondent that if my prediction is right, it’ll open the way for federal handgun bans. This is out of my area of expertise but there’s a separate question of whether Congress has the power to regulate weapons, at least under the Commerce Clause. Given the political sensitivity of the issue and the prospect for a backlash among independents the Democrats need to win, I’m guessing if the Court does declare the Second Amendment a collective right you’ll be seeing both parties’ nominees take the federalist approach of letting the states regulate it.
Update: In fact, now that I think of it, it’s not out of the question that Kennedy would join the conservatives if they interpret the provision in a federalist manner. The reasoning would go something like this: Since militias are a tool used by the states to defend themselves from aggression by the federal government, it’s up to the states themselves to decide how “well regulated” they want their militias to be. If Texas wants every man to have the right to own a gun in his home, so be it; if D.C. wants to make it a collective right, so be it. The obvious attraction of that model would be that it lets rural areas be rural and urban areas be urban and is also true in spirit to the Court’s jurisprudence over the last 10-12 years expanding the scope of states’ rights. Significantly, Kennedy joined the majority in most (or possibly all) of those decisions. Roberts may see the federalist solution as a way to bring him onboard for this one too.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Because candidates never lie and ALWAYS keep their promises.
Gag. Get a grip.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Just what America needs right now: another George Bush.
And, by an amazing coincidence, that’s exactly what the Democrats want as an opponent. After all, they’ve put a massive amount of political rhetoric into running against BUSH in 2008. So I guess it would be unsporting of Republicans to not do everything we can to make sure that our opponent’s efforts pay off for them.
logis on November 20, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Did I say they don’t lie? Did I? I said people who are concerned about judgees aren’t going to forget. And if it turns out he lies on judges, through his @ss out of office.
How is wanting to serve as President for more than one term, and being accountable, being like George Bush?
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Here is a problem, that I have thought of and I think has escaped everyone else. Suppose the DC law is tossed out. Then what is to stop an illegal alien from legally obtaining firearms? The illegal alien could walk into a gun store, plunk his dineros on the table and say I will buy this pistol or that shotgun. Indeed, if he has enough cash, the illegal alien can buy himself a whole arsenal. Requiring a drivers license would not prevent illegal aliens from purchasing firearms. An ACLU lawsuit would argue that requiring drivers licenses to purchase firearms is a violation of equal protection because it discriminates against “undocumented workers” and then a Clinton/Carter judge would surely agree. So now you have a huge problem. This reminds me of a general in the Civil War who looked at the carnage on the battlefield after a battle had ended and said: “Another such victory and I am undone”.
Larraby on November 20, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Can’t wait to see the candidates’ statements on this. Licenses, English only, and gun rights will trip up Hill and Obama, and force the REp’s. to the right. Can be useful. Think it has the potential to be the most dangerous to Rudy.
JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 3:21 PM
judgees=judges
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Simple solution Larraby, the right to keep and bear arms is just like the right to vote. It belongs to citizens, not visitors.
shirgall on November 20, 2007 at 3:23 PM
When too many criminals have guns, take them away from the legal owners?
We really don’t have that many rights left the way the Founding Father’s saw things, but this one is going to backfire if pinheads try to take it away.
Hening on November 20, 2007 at 3:23 PM
I dont get the opposition to states regulating gun ownership. That is the federalist way. Militias are state concepts right? If california wants tight controls, great. If Texas thinks everyone should have one, great. Don’t like the law in TX or CA? Vote em out and get people in who will set it the way you want.
lorien1973 on November 20, 2007 at 3:23 PM
No, but you continually suggest that we should all vote for Giuliani and completely ignore his longstanding history of appointing liberal judges, grabbing guns, abortion support, and illegal alien a$$ kissing, simply because he’s promised us that he’s suddenly a different guy.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Not really “too hopeful.” You got to understand no court has the authority to rule the Constitution ….. un-Constitutional. And states can indeed give you MORE rights than the federal Constitution but NOT LESS.
Firstly, it’s a far leap to first determine the Second Amendment provides no individual right to keep and bear arms but it’s a much greater leap to find that it prohibits individuals from doing so even when their State Constitutions recognize such a right.
But I stress again that the argument as to what the Second Amendment “means” will be moot in this case because the original venue it was based on was Washington DC.
In all truth, it does not matter to any person living in one of the fifty states how the Supreme Court rules in this case because the Federal government does NOT enjoy plenary jurisdiction in the fifty states, it only has that power in Washington DC and other federal enclaves. So whatever they rule, it will not apply to any of the 50 states, but if they reverse the lower court, you can be sure the media will play it up as if this decision applied to the entire USA, but that would simply be a lie or a gross misunderstanding of the ruling.
Maxx on November 20, 2007 at 3:24 PM
And just how accountable to the Republican base was Bush 2000-2004 while still getting re-elected?
Even if he appointed another Kennedy, look at all the people saying we have to vote for Rudy even if we don’t particularly like him because he’s the lesser of two evils? Am I supposed to believe that they’d feel differently should Rudy not live up to the low expectations many of us already have were he to get elected?
Hollowpoint on November 20, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Which other amendments in the Bill of Rights would you have the states be able to weaken or ignore on a state-by-state basis? Freedom of speech? Religion? Unreasonable search and seizure?
Hollowpoint on November 20, 2007 at 3:28 PM
I could debate you on every one of those from the fact he was in a Liberal city to the fact I lived in New York and the gun ban actually worked, but here’s the bottom line: People change.
Fred supported McCain-Feingold. He doesn’t now. Romney circa 2002:
Now, he’s pro-life.
Reagan was a Hollywood union boss Democrat that supported gun control measures and signed a bill on abortion into effect, which was crafted by Democrats and is said to have lead to an increase in abortions. He went on to appoint Kennedy.
Rudy hasn’t been mayor in what will be 8 years. He continues to tell us he’s basically pro-choice. He tells you crap you don’t want to hear, pissing you off. But when he tells you he’ll appoint originalist judges, all of a sudden he’s lying.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 3:30 PM
I use the pro-immigration argument. A ban is unenforceable. Think how would it be enforced? I don’t see gun owners dropping their guns off at central collection facility. Door to door? Who? The Military?
ronsfi on November 20, 2007 at 3:35 PM
You are joking, right? Are you a liberal plant, or something?
The likelyhood that all sections of the current law are going to get “tossed out” as you put it, is absolutely absurd. Only four justices would consider it, and it’s unlikely they’d consider it too long. Supreme Court decisions aren’t set out as absolutes.
And what’s with the “…illegal alien can buy himself a whole arsenal…” crap? Are you trying to frighten law abiding gun owners into being scared of GREATER gun rights because a few illegal aliens will avail themselves of purchasing a firearm?
Puleeez!
kayawanee on November 20, 2007 at 3:35 PM
No one is questioning Giuliani’s memory; it’s his commitment that’s at issue. It doesn’t really matter all that much whether Rudy remembers that he said he said he “kinda sorta wouldn’t mind too awfully much” if someone like Scalia might be appointed again someday. Logically speaking, a statement like that can never be either “true” or “false.” And realistically speaking, it couldn’t possibly matter less anyway.
The only question that really matters is: What will Guiliani do when it’s time to fight a Democratic-controlled Congress tooth and nail to get a non ACLU approved justice appointed?
And we have all SEEN the answer to that question.
So, to paraphrase the immortal Groucho Marks: “Who are you going to believe; Guiliani or your own eyes?”
logis on November 20, 2007 at 3:36 PM
I know you can. I’ve seen your answers in many threads. It’s the old … “Rudy did what he needed to win in a liberal state” excuse. Of course, that translates into …
Rudy says whatever it takes to get elected, regardless of his true beliefs.
Seriously. What exactly DOES Rudy believe and how the Hell are we able to know which Rudy is the real Rudy?
The answer? BY HIS ACTIONS. His actions, by the way, all indicate that he’s a liberal.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 3:36 PM
They do not apply. Read the amendments that you’ve just cited. The only one that has any sort of precondition is the 2nd.
lorien1973 on November 20, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?
If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.
- Stalin
Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty.
A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.
- Lenin
Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.
- Heinrich Himmler
OhEssYouCowboys on November 20, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Heh. Yeah, he SAYS that his PERSONAL view is that he’s pro-life, but he makes sure that he follows that up by stating that he believes in following the law of the land which happens to be pro-abortion.
Sounds awfully Hillaryish, doesn’t it?
Keep in mind that he doesn’t seem to share this view of the “law of the land” when it comes to the Bill of Rights. He believes that he has the power and the right to IGNORE the Constitution … if it reduces crime.
Face it. Your guy is a cross dresser, in more ways than one.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 3:41 PM
It’s a QUAGMIRE!!!
Don’t worry though. Presumably, the limberals will refuse to accept a Supreme Court gun ownership ban if it doesn’t include an “exit strategy,” including a fully fleshed-out plan for failure before implementation begins.
logis on November 20, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Mitt says he’s pro-life now. In 2002, he said he was extremely pro-choice, vowing to fight for the woman’s right to choose. He favored gay rights. Mitt supported abortion rights established under Roe V. Wade. Is he a Liberal?
Which is the real one? Fred supported McCain-Feingold. Now he doesn’t.
How would you like Rudy to prove to you he’s changed his stances?
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 3:46 PM
The only one that has any sort of precondition is the 2nd.
lorien1973 on November 20, 2007 at 3:37 PM
WRONG. There is no precondition, the concensus of legal scholarship agrees that the 2A affirms an individual right. Moreover, any person who researches the recorded opinions of the founders cannot reach any conclusion other than the intent of the 2A is an individual right.
When you find enough latitude for debate look for supporting or corroborating documents. Based on that premise, the argument over the 2A is closed.
Alamo on November 20, 2007 at 3:48 PM
That’s a good question. The Supreme Court has held that the rights granted to American citizens also apply to Citizens Of The World. But would they also apply this newly-invented “Constitutional Restriction” to the rest of the planet as well?
logis on November 20, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Hollowpoint said:
To which I said:
Who questioned Giuliani’s memory? I’m saying people who are concerned about what judges he’ll appoint aren’t going to forget his promise in 14 months.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 3:49 PM
The road to disarmament is generational. You’re seeing it in our elementary schools – where children are sent home for DRAWING a gun. The message? – Anybody who would own a gun is abnormal. That is the message to the children.
It won’t be long, and the children will be asked about whether or not their parents have guns in the house. Then, it will be a DHS matter. You can’t own a gun and be a good parent. Own a gun and you lose your children.
All of this will happen. It’s just a matter of time. Every generation of Americans becomes more and more bovine. In the end, the cattle will disarm themselves – for the children.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 20, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Exactly! Mitt has some of the same issues Rudy has, although not as many. But I don’t support Mitt either. I support Tancredo. But of course, we both know that’s going nowhere.
As for Fred …
Is that all you have? McCain-Feingold?
LOL!
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 3:50 PM
One problem I see with the argument that it’s a state’s right, that the state can keep arms and store them in a central location, is that defeats the purpose of a militia to protect against a tyrannical federal government. All the feds would have to do is seize the armory and the citizens are defenseless. The rights of the citizens to keep arms at home is central to the idea of a militia.
O-Dub on November 20, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Show your support for the ‘individual right’ view, and buy ammo this week.
Free Constitution on November 20, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Why does this not shock me?
Supports abortion rights in the first term…denied he lobbied for an abortion group, then backed off his denial. But here’s the thing: He hasn’t changed all that much. That’s why I don’t support him first.
And you make McCain-Feingold sound like it was unimportant. We’re still dealing with it today.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 3:56 PM
The bill of rights is chock full of rights and none of them are absolute. For example the 1st says:
That’s pretty clear. You can exercise your religion and Congress cannot stop you. Sound’s pretty absolute to me. However, the cases on this issue only give you an absolute right to believe in your religion. The actual exercise, i.e., conduct, of the religion (that which was purportedly protected by the amendment) is nowhere near absolute. The conduct of any religion can be restricted if done in a narrow fashion to protect a compelling state interest.
Certainly, the right to keep and bear arms is not more cherished than freedom of religion. If we can restrict human sacrifice by pagans, polygamy by Mormons and use of peyote by Navajo, we can restrict the right to keep and bear arms. However, just like restrictions on the exercise of religion must be narrowly drafted to protect a compelling state interest, so to must restrictions on guns be narrow and in furtherance of a compelling state interest. The war will be over what is narrow enough, what is too broad, and what is a compelling state interest.
tommylotto on November 20, 2007 at 3:57 PM
If the second amendment goes, I say we all secede and show then what a militia we can be.
sasmks on November 20, 2007 at 3:58 PM
BS. There is no “precondition” in the 2nd. You’d have a point if it said “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms in service of militia service shall not be infringed”, but it doesn’t and thus you don’t.
Hollowpoint on November 20, 2007 at 3:58 PM
I did not say that. It’s just that you were comparing it to a man who has supported every liberal cause throughout his entire career.
I’m sure it does. I wouldn’t expect a person who is activily campaigning and blog spamming for one of the country’s worst RINOs in history to support the only true conservative in the election.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 3:59 PM
To some extent this is already happening- I read an article (too lazy to look it up) about how pediatricians were asking child patients if Mommy and Daddy kept guns in the house.
Hollowpoint on November 20, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Every Liberal cause? Really?
Uh huh. I’m “blog spamming”? I’ve been commenting here long before I supported Giuliani’s candidacy. You know who else thinks they have the “only true conservative”? Huckabee. And Ron Paul’s supporters.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Right, and Rudy was against it, right? Oh, wait- he was for it too. Nevermind. He was also about as anti-gun as you can get.
Hollowpoint on November 20, 2007 at 4:03 PM
‘regulated’ = Legistlation, Command Strucuture, Law and Order
In this day and age, how does a person in their home with a gun ‘necessary’ to the freedom of a State? Furthermore, how does a law applied to a free State apply to an independent District of the Union?
‘the right of people’ = People being all those with legal citizenship within this Union of 50 States.
‘keep’ = to store near ones being for ones protection and guaranty of freedom.
In the era of the struggle for Independence, Arms needed to be close at hand so one was ready to join the fight, the ‘village’ mentality. There were no military bases or armories in ready deployment and establishment.
Furthermore one could keep ‘Arms’ only if in accordance with the necessity to insure the ‘freedom of the State’ whilst being apart of a ‘well regulated Militia.’
‘bear’ = to have and to hold Arms if the freedom of the State is at stake, whilst being apart of a well regulated Militia.
’shall not be infringed.’ = No law shall prohibit any State from the right to prevent it’s people from keeping and bearing arms whilst in a well regulated Militia that in itself is necessary to keep the States freedom. Therein a law could read “No persons shall keep or bear machine guns and grenade launchers, if they are not a citizen and a member of a well regulated Militia. If and only if the Militia is deemed by any State within the Union as being necessary to the freedom of the State.”
However, the District of Colombia is not a State. Therefore, the clause does not apply to the District because no well regulated Militia is necessary to insure the freedom of a State – because no State in question exists.
However, by necessity, a well regulated Militia is needed to insure the freedom and therein security of the people of the District of Colombia. Therefore, inherently speaking, the elected officials with powers of legislation can create laws that necessitate the freedom of the District. Assuming of course that the elected officials have the freedom of their constituency in their best interest.
PresidenToor on November 20, 2007 at 4:04 PM
O…K… I guess no one is questioning YOUR memory then. Whichever.
But since you bring up the issue of your reasoning capacity: My point was that it doesn’t matter what Giuliani said. So, of course, it’s infinitely less important whether he – or anyone else – remembers that he said it.
logis on November 20, 2007 at 4:05 PM
My statement wasn’t an attempt to say Rudy’s better on that. My point was, and I quote:
My point is that people change their views — not that Rudy is better on McCain-Feingold.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 4:05 PM
I did spell Columbia wrong, thought I’d give them that at least after call them “not a State.”
PresidenToor on November 20, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Please read my comment at 2:13 PM and also my correction to that comment at 2:21 PM.
What I’m saying with those comments is that THIS Supreme Court case will not …. and cannot impact any area that is NOT a federal enclave such as Washington DC, or other federal enclaves I gave examples of above.
So no matter what they rule, it has no impact on you or any of the things you mentioned unless you live in Washington DC or one of the other federal enclaves. But don’t expect the media to tell you that !! You can bet the media would and will play any reversal of the lower court as a defeat for the Second Amendment, even though that simply will not apply since the federal government is granted special powers in all federal enclaves.
But setting that issue aside, even if the Supreme Court were ruling on this case with the original venue being one of the fifty states rather than a federal enclave, a denial of a right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court, would not override you State’s Constitution that recognizes that right.
That is because you State Constitution is granting you MORE rights than the Federal Constitution and not LESS. Therefore your State Constitution is not impacted by such a ruling. This concept is well established in American jurisprudence.
Maxx on November 20, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Yes. Really. Every liberal cause.
Gun grabbing. Check.
Support of abortion. Check.
Cross dressing. Check.
Open borders/amnesty. Check.
Appointing liberal judges. Check.
NAFTA. Check.
Huckabee? Not true. Word is spreading quickly that he’s one of the biggest frauds in the group.
Ron Paul? Conservative? Heh. Not even close. Most Ron Paul supporters are anti-war, 9/11 Truthers. They don’t tend conservative.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Quagmire is right!
ronsfi on November 20, 2007 at 4:11 PM
And Rudy magically changed ALL of his views in the 24 hours after declaring his intention to run for President.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 4:12 PM
So everyone who calls himself a “true conservative” is… what, exactly?
On second thought, nevermind. Look, if you’re trying to prove that you’re NOT trolling, you’re doing a really bad job of it.
logis on November 20, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Do you think this will be what the new and improved redneck Rudy who loves Nascar will be telling the fans?
JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 4:15 PM
There’s one thing amongst those that’s more important to me than cross dressing. I just…can’t…remember…oh. Supporting the war on terror. Open borders/amnesty? Check the field of Republicans.
And I’m not saying Huck or Paul are Conservatives. I’m saying their supporters say the same thing you do. The “one true Conservative”.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 4:16 PM
That outcome would be so unsatisfying and wishy-washy that I daresay it seems quite realistic.
Blacklake on November 20, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Hardly the dictionary definition, and not the one that makes sense in context and commonly used at the time:
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
Funny, I didn’t know that amendments had an expiration date:
Well, you got something right- people means people; i.e. citizens:
And you follow it up by completely making crap up. Overreach much?
Then you get it horribly, absurdly wrong in every sense- especially the historical:
And then you completely jump the shark:
Didn’t you just say that “people” meant “people”? And it’s the “right to keep and bear arms” that shall not be infringed, not the “right of the state to restrict the people to keep and bear arms”.
Hollowpoint on November 20, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Me too. But I think we are the only ones.
Maxx on November 20, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Yes, but he’ll leave out the part about the restrictions, registration, certification, etc. Then he’ll look’em in the eye and say somethin’ like your 80% friend is not your 20% enemy.
tommylotto on November 20, 2007 at 4:21 PM
I don’t have to prove I’m not trolling. My numerous comments on this thread are a result of carrying on several conversations at once. A majority of the threads I comment on, aren’t regarding Rudy, Fred, or the others.
So, here’s the bottom line: This thread has been going on for about 3 hours. You haven’t convinced me of anything, and I haven’t convinced you of anything. We’ve gotten to the point we’re not even talking about the thread’s topic. I propose leaving the thread at that.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 4:22 PM
It won’t work. The stakes are raised.
JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 4:23 PM
This defense for supporting Rudy is amazingly absurd, simply due to the fact that any number of candidates – all far more conservative than Rudy – offer every bit the same support for the War on Terror, if not more.
Fred – just as strong on the war and other defense issues, and far more trustworthy on border issues.
Tancredo – nobody is better.
Hunter – A+ on all issues.
Even Romney and McCain are strong on the War on Terror, other than McCain’s sissy stance on torture.
I’m sorry. Did you actually suggest that Rudy strong on borders/amnesty? Seriously? Wait. SERIOUSLY?
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 4:24 PM
I forgot to tell you how I know. It won’t work for me.
JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 4:24 PM
We’re not the only ones aware that he’s the correct choice. There are millions of us. We’re just among the few who aren’t blind enough to vote for a liberal gun grabber simply because he gave tough speeches to TV cameras after 9/11.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 4:28 PM
No. I said:
As in, “See McCain”.
I also didn’t say the other Republicans didn’t support the war on terror every it as much as Rudy. You had said he supported “every Liberal cause”. I pointed out that the one crucial thing you left off of the list of important issues would be the war on terror, before even debating those other points. My point is that, right off the bat, he doesn’t take a Liberal stance on the war on terror.
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 4:28 PM
No Individual right’s – DEATH TO AMERICA
ricor on November 20, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Amerpundit is not trolling. He’s been around for a long time and I agree with him on most issues. But Amerpundit … you ARE spamming for Rudy. There’s a clear agenda in your comments. Your arguments for Rudy go against reason.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 4:31 PM
So, Rudy is Joe Leiberman then, lol. He’s a liberal who supports the war.
He’s still a liberal. So is Leiberman.
Wait. Leiberman is more conservative than Rudy. I have to apologize to Joe for that.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Not without a fight baby. Live free or die.
JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 4:34 PM
First of all, thank you for saying I’m not trolling. Mutually, I agree with you on most issues. My intention isn’t to spam, so I apologize if it comes off as such. I just find myself in the midst of holding several conversations, one person updates, then the other, etc…
amerpundit on November 20, 2007 at 4:34 PM
From the January 2001 Idaho Observer:
First we have the British and Australian examples of gun confiscation: Incidence of armed and violent crimes have increased dramatically and cases of unarmed innocent people being injured or killed are continuing to rise. Closer to home, we will soon have the Canadian example of gun confiscation. Fortunately the Canadian example may more closely represent what will happen in the U.S. as Canadian gun owners are not giving up their guns as easily as the Brits and the Aussies.
So far, 1.7 million people have enrolled with the federal government’s gun registry. The exact number of Canadians possessing firearms is unknown but estimates range from fewer than 3.3 million to as many as nine million.
“They’ve got a heck of a mess on their hands,” Jim Hinter, president of the National Firearms Association, said. “I think it proves that there’s literally millions of Canadians who are just refusing to participate in what they see as a bogus law.”
As of Jan. 1, gun owners without licenses cannot buy ammunition. Penalties for someone found possessing a firearm without the proper paperwork range from temporary seizure of the weapon to five years in prison.
The licensing and registration program has cost $327 million, since the law’s passage in 1995, to April 1, 2000. Bill C-68 requires that all owners of long guns (rifles and shotguns that had been previously exempt) obtain possession licenses by Dec. 31, 2000, or after their existing firearms acquisition certificates expire. By Dec. 31, 2002, people must register each of their guns, a provision that is even more controversial than licensing.
Speakup on November 20, 2007 at 4:38 PM
They’re welcome to rule any way they like.
They’ll never take away our guns.
First of all, it would take the U.S. military to do it.
Regardless of policy, the soldiers of the U.S. military would never take away the guns.
Even if they did, there are more of us than there are of them.
Screw the potential court ruling or subsequent laws. The risk of civil war would be too great.
natesnake on November 20, 2007 at 4:39 PM
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20010115.htm
Speakup on November 20, 2007 at 4:39 PM
I like that we can have a discussion/debate about the topic at hand unlike some of these other comments, but could you please assert your interpretation rather then telling me I am wrong at every point.
To put it correctly I believe (or assert) ‘people’ are citizens of this Union of 50 States. However, that being sad there is no doubt that the District of Columbia are citizens of this Union, that being said are they under the purview of the State? If they were then they should be given Senatorial power which they are not.
Furthermore, my whole argument attempted to demonstrate, albeit badly in some cases, that there is a direct coupling of a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms only under the necessity to insure the freedom of a State whilst apart of a regulated Militia.
Also you pointed out the historical context of a regulated troop. This would still be a troop that is put into service via some legislation, has a command structure applied to said troop, and abides by a certain law and order in their regulation within the Militia.
PresidenToor on November 20, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Predicting how the Supreme Court is going to rule on this is like flipping a coin. Half the people will be right, the other half wrong.
The ones right, will say “I told you so” and the ones wrong will, well there won’t be any, no one will admit it.
You’re getting pretty good at this. Let’s hope Presidentoor is a female and you get some pleasure out of spanking her.
right2bright on November 20, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Now I am seem to be trolling…but in anycase.
I believe that as an American I should engange in discourse with my people (our people, the people, whatever). If given the freedom of speech I should use it. And if given one’s opinion I should learn from it.
And as for me, I am a guy, but I guess that means you have insulted me by thinking I am a girl…
PresidenToor on November 20, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Would that be a hate crime?
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 4:51 PM
People don’t take into account that words change meaning over time. The words, A well-regulated militia, that people argue about in the second amendment does not mean regulated as in controlled. “Well regulated” at the time the constitution was written meant something more like proficient. The framers were stating that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was key to the ability for the young country and it’s citizens to protect themselves against enemies foreign and domestic. The country may not need the citizens to be “proficient” as it did 220 + years ago, any drill instructor would tell you that few are. But that dosnt negate the right or the need of the people to protect themselves.
Substitute proficient for well regulated as you read.
“A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
JackS on November 20, 2007 at 4:51 PM
The Leftists/Socialists know the true rationale behind the Second Amendment – which is PRECISELY why they fear it.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 20, 2007 at 4:51 PM
I was just making a silly comment. Hollowpoint and I have had a few rounds.
But calling you a female is not an insult, unless you think women are unworthy…not a wise position if you want to live a long and happy life.
The correct answer is: Thank you for the compliment, but unfortunately I am a guy.
right2bright on November 20, 2007 at 4:56 PM
So no gun rights exist, cause DC isn’t a state. So why did they pass a law restricting the right?
Also, have you checked out the role of Congress in regulating the district? Your “inherent” idea may be all wet.
JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 4:56 PM
“Troll” isn’t something you ARE; it’s something you DO.
If someone chooses to say something inane, then I get to make fun of him for precisely as long as he continues to persist in it. I could not possibly care less whether he said something that wasn’t stupid yesterday, or whether he might do so again tomorrow. I deal with what I see on the screen, when I see it. And everyone else can just deal with that.
Or not. Suit yourself. But trust me, your prior relationships are the business of absolutely NO ONE except yourselves — please have the common decency to keep it that way.
logis on November 20, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Thank you. Case closed. If nothing else, I will keep what you said in mind.
JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Every American should read this book. If you don’t want to BUY it, then pick it up at a book store and read the first chapter. You’ll find it hard to put down.
On second thought, every human being should read the book.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 4:59 PM
If nothing else, it’s a great idea for a movie. The die-hard liberals will go running to the blue states. The die-hard conservatives will go running to the red states.
Funny thing is, red states will now have the vast majority of resources…….. and the guns.
natesnake on November 20, 2007 at 5:03 PM
The term “troll” is used to define a person who hangs out in a blog simply to either annoy the readers, or to post disinformation. While I would agree that sometimes it seems that Ameripundit makes a mission of posting disinformation and misleading comments in support of Rudy, the fact that he has a long history on HotAir of conservative stances would indicate that his reason for being here does not fit the definition of “troll.”
He’s not a troll, whether or not you choose to accept that.
“Rusty” on the other hand …
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Forget the movie. I really like that idea. A lot! I vote we make it reality.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 5:05 PM
The obvious detraction is that millions of citizens in big cities and blue states will be at the mercy of gangsters and thugs who will then have all the guns. Model city of the future: Washington DC, murder capital of the nation.
peski on November 20, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Hardly necessary; that your interpretation was absurd should be self evident- like suggesting that citizens weren’t allowed to own weapons except for military purposes when the Constitution was written.
And you missed the point- “regulated” as in “controlled by act of law” doesn’t make sense in context, but “militarily well functioning” does.
The founders could have- by changing only a few words- made it clear that the 2nd Amendment was intended only to protect the right of the states to form armed militias, but they didn’t. They stated that since a well-functioning militia (drawn from armed citizens) is necessary, that the government (with passage of the 14th Amendment would include state government) shall not infringe upon the rights of the people to keep (own, store, have ready) or bare (use or carry as necessary) arms. No condition that the arms must be used in service to a state militia is made.
But let’s compare interpretations, shall we?
Yours:
A well legislated, state controlled militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the state to grant the right of the people to keep and bear arms for military service shall not be infringed.
Mine:
A well functioning, capable militia formed of citizens armed with personal weapons being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to possess and use firearms shall not be infringed upon.
Now given that the word “people” is universally used not to mean “the state” but “citizens”, and that the clear purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect individual rights from government intrustion- which makes more sense? A version that protects individual rights from government intrusion, or a version that protects a government right to intrude on individual rights?
Hollowpoint on November 20, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Excellent point, Amerpundit. And may I say how much I enjoy your very sensible comments.
If I could interecede here for a moment – that is an absurd complaint, and dare I say incredibly hypocritical since it very easy to argue that Gregor is “spamming” against Rudy.
Moreover, as someone who lived in New York, I can state as an absolute fact that Gregor does not know what he’s talking about when he calls Rudy a “liberal”. John Lindsay was a liberal. Dinkins was a liberal. He may not be a social con, but Rudy is not and was not ever a liberal.
Rudy saved NYC from ruin by successfully challenging the liberal bureaucracy and liberal thinking that had infected NYC for decades.
Buy Danish on November 20, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Pointing out actual facts and actions that Rudy said, did, or supported is far different than someone who’s attempting to HIDE or MANIPULATE those factual realities into something they are not, which is “conservative.”
To those who are supporting Rudy … there is NOTHING he’s ever done wrong. Completely ignoring simple historical voting records and actual DIRECT QUOTES from Giuliani on these issues and suggesting that he’s suddenly CHANGED HIS MIND just in time to run for President is simply dishonest.
Rudy’s actions throughout his career indicate that you’re full of cow dung. Rudy’s a flaming liberal.
Stop making me puke with that talking point nonsense. Saved NYC from ruin? LOL! Pathetic.
Are you saying NYC is no longer “liberal thinking, hahahaha?! Riiiiiiiiiight.
Who was it that overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry immediately after being ground zero in the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history?
That’s right. The same people who voted for Rudy Giuliani. That’s not a coincidence.
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Thank you for the book recommendation. I loathe and fear the U.N. and will put it on my reading list.
Meanwhile, if I might recommend a book to you :)
The Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the Genius of American Life, by Fred Siegel.
Here is an excerpt of Booklist’s review:
Buy Danish on November 20, 2007 at 5:53 PM
If they want to take away my registered guns, they are going to have a problem doing that, because all of my guns were stolen. Yep. I’m going to kick in my door and call the authorities and report a burglary. All of my guns were stolen. Don’t know who did it and where the guns went. Swear to God.
cjs1943 on November 20, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Good God! You just used a book written by the senior advisor to Rudolph Giuliani’s 1993 mayoral campaign to defend his former employer and somehow feel this information is fair and unbiased.
Need I mention that Siegel is a regular contributor to THE NEW REPUBLIC and the NEW YORK TIMES? Always the bastion of conservative ideals.
Maybe we should all vote for Hillary. I’m sure I can dig up some George Soros opinion pieces to support her as the world’s savior.
Should I even mention Siegel’s contributions to “Dissent Magazine?”
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Gregor,
You have a tendency to point out a laundry list of complaints which are often taken out of the context of his administration and the situation he faced as Mayor. As such, much of what you insist are “facts” are in fact “opinions”.
It’s a bit like a politician claiming that a Senator is against tax cuts just because they voted for one bill that raised taxes, while ignoring the fact that they voted to cut taxes hundreds of times.
It helps to remember that when Giuliani took over as Mayor of New York, there was no civil order and the situation was close to anarchy. When Lincoln and FDR were President, they both had to take measures that would not have been possible or desirous to take if not for the fact that we were at war and measures that could be viewed as “un-constitutional” were taken.
When looking at how Rudy handled crime, immigration, and the problem of guns on the street, and so forth it helps to keep in mind that NYC was under siege and desperate times often call for desperate measures. I believe that the actions he took to get guns off the streets fall into that category.
Amerpundit is right when he says that Rudy would appoint judges who would satisfy conservatives, and when it comes to the Second Amendment the power of the President is pretty much limited to judicial appointments, so many of the actions he took as Mayor which you disagree with are largely irrelevant to the Presidency.
Buy Danish on November 20, 2007 at 6:14 PM
I agree. I’m a retired Army officer, I have an advanced degree. I don’t smoke. I’ve been drunk exactly twice in over 60 years ( the night before leaving for Vietnam and the night before returning home). I own several long guns and handguns, and I will not let the government take them away.
Longhorn Six on November 20, 2007 at 6:15 PM
I like it. Just may use it.
Longhorn Six on November 20, 2007 at 6:18 PM
A couple of random thoughts, helped along with SCOTUS Blog’s writeup:
- How this case is decided all depends on which side of the bed Kennedy wakes up on the morning they write opinions. All I can tell is there are 4 Justices that want to give the District and gun-grabbers everywhere a victory, because 4 is the magic number for the Supreme Court to consider the case.
- It’s less than likely that Giuliani will benefit from a defeat for gun rights. Indeed, he is the one Republican who would likely not benefit but rather suffer as the guns-only crowd vents in a third-party direction. After all, before he was a “Constitutionalist”, he was a gun-grabber.
- On a related note, a win for gun rights will not have quite the effect on the left that a defeat for gun rights will have on the right. The left is already at maximum outrage.
- I strongly doubt that the Democrats will jump on board the federalist train. Their instrument of change is the Supreme Court, and their response to the ruling, win, lose, or draw, will be to get (or grow as the case may be) a gun-grabbing majority on the Court.
- The case itself does not involve a federalist issue; the DC District held that because the District is a federal construct, the Second Amendment does apply there and thus invalidated the various sections of DC’s gun ban.
As for how the ruling is going to go down, I strongly suspect it will depend on how hard the conservatives on the Court push to extend the individual-rights argument to the states. If that is at most a secondary issue, DC’s gun ban is gone. If they try to use this case as a stepping stone to throw open the door to dumping, say, Wisconsin’s absolute ban on concealed carry, the pendulum will swing the other way.
steveegg on November 20, 2007 at 6:21 PM
sorry… but Rudi is only a Conservative by New York standards…
The rest of the country calls that a Liberal.
As to his “Promise” to appoint Strict Constructionist Judges?
He PERSONALY was involved in numberous lawsuits to overturn CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS!!! Like… oh… the Second Amendment?
I don’t think his interpretation of the Constitution is what I would call strict construction… He’ll appoint Judges who interpret the Cons. like he does… which scares the Bejesus outa me…
As Indigo said… ” you keepa useing that word…”
Romeo13 on November 20, 2007 at 6:24 PM
It helps to remember that when Giuliani took over as Mayor of New York, there was no civil order and the situation was close to anarchy.
Come on! Give me a break! Enough of this laughable nonsense. “Close to anarchy?” Do you write that with a straight face?
Again, the facts simply don’t support your claims:
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Oh…. and somthing just hit me…
Almost every Action of Rudi that you call Conservative is actualy Authoritarian in nature. It was more in the nature of gaining and using Power, than forwarding a real agenda.
Even his use of the Courts is in that vein…
Scary… very scary.
Romeo13 on November 20, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Let me try this again …
Come on! Give me a break! Enough of this laughable nonsense. “Close to anarchy?” Do you write that with a straight face?
Again, the facts simply don’t support your claims:
Gregor on November 20, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »