No one really made an issue when SCOTUS said:

* You no longer have proerty rights (Kelo v New London) …
* The right to kill the unborn is embedded in the Constitution (Roe v Wade) …
* The state has a compelling interest to suspend the 4th Amendment (plethora …) …

I would suspect that this “Nation of Cowards” and “Compliant Authoritarians disguised as Conservatives” will bend the knee and submit to kiss the hand that feeds them when SCOTUS tells them to turn in their guns.

Thinking back across American Independance history – foregoing all of the ludicris legislative crap the British Crown instilled upon the Colonies, the fact is, when the British marched toward Lexington and Concord, the purpose was to disarm the locals. Disarm the population and their resistance is muted.

Regarding the “from my cold dead hands” position in the thread; Have you calculated the cost or is this just empty bold talk?

Should you assume this position … You might not be in your warm house every night. Slept in the cold recently? Your family still needs food. How will you provide? You have a house payment due. Willing to stick it out, maybe lose the house? The friendly neighbors you used to frequently chat with … they are users of the new snitch line the government set up. Willing to place a MilDot on a neighbor, or a state agent? What preparations have you made?

We are talking about your liberty.

This coming decision regarding the 2nd Amendment is a very serious issue. Free men own weapons. Slaves don’t. Federal enclave or not.

If your inalienable right to bar arms is “redacted” by federal authorities … do you really think the States will honor it? States like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Kansas, California … Let us know how that works out for you.

During the War for Independance, a more organized militia existed. Considering the ridicule a “militia” receives today, how will you form and organize tomorrow? Do you even own a firearm? In the electronic age, are you knowledgeable in communication?

When the “rush to Red States” occurs … Will you stand on principle by your neighbor or look to the local authorities to protect you?

Are you a concealed carry holder? Be forewarned … You are on an easily accessible list … surely the state will have “compelling interest” pay you a visit to “examine” your property.

The public schools don’t teach civics anymore … Do you teach your children about the costs of liberty … or the sacrifices in liberty for (perceived) security.

I imagine that most that may have read this far are rolling thier eyes at the ‘whack job’ post. But, my family knows the value and cost of liberty.

Should the decison come down to a collective right, or an individual right with a boatload of inane requirements … all I have to say is “Molōn labe!” and “Best of luck” to the state agent coming up my neck of the woods.

Just a clarification: Governments do not “grant” a citizen his rights, they can only restrict or remove them.
Texas Nick 77 on November 21, 2007 at 6:57 AM

If WE, THE PEOPLE allow them

…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.

posted at 1:30 pm on November 20, 2007 by Allahpundit

I know I should feel encouraged by the fact that Constitutional debate is actually taking place in the Supreme Court for the first time in decades…

But I keep feeling appalled instead. Here we have Justices tentatively broaching the issue of federalism as if it’s some spanking new legal theory that was just invented ten minutes ago: “Golly, maybe we can apply a ‘federalist’ approach to this case and just see what happens. What the heck, I guess we can try any thing once!”

I know I should try to look at this positively and say, hey, at least it’s a start. But I just can’t help but recall that the start actually took place over two hundred years ago. This is what people must have felt like during the Dark Ages: watching the “wise men” struggle to re-learn what children used to consider common knowledge.

Regulated… ie following regulations… ie under the rule of law.

BadBrad on November 21, 2007 at 6:42 AM

Hmmm… theres the Regulation… regulating the Militia.

Only problem is a lawyer reading this will say that therefore you have to be a Male between 17 and 45 (lets me out… I’m 48) or a Female in the “organized militia” to be able to own and carry a gun.

One of the provinces of the Congress, that they seem to have forgoten, is that they can by legislation DEFINE terms in the Constitution… which in this case they have by “Regulating” the militia.

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. -Allahpundit

Let us be clear. There are two issues here.

One is the individual’s federal right to own weapons (ie: Firearms).

Two is the states’ rights to have a militia.

The issue of state militias is moot if citizens not otherwise employed by the government in a military or law enforcement role are not allowed to own firearms.

Bottom line folks, this isn’t about militias. This is about individuals owning firearms.

It is the ability of the average individual to defend themselves with prejudice that most scares the Marxists (ie: Hillary Clinton) and other socialist movements active within our political system.

So, yeah, this is a big deal.

“Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding on what to eat for dinner, Freedom is an armed sheep contesting the outcome” – I forgot who said this…

BadBrad on November 21, 2007 at 6:42 AM

Thanks. Copied to my HD.

This is anarchy. Great fun.

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Section 21:”The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense
of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

Gov. Ed Rendell (D), went before the PA House Judiciary Commitee today to argue for 4 gun restrictions.
The commitee heard his banter, then showed him the door, right quick!

hooptycab on November 20, 2007 at 10:05 PM

Good for them, better for the citizens of Pa.

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

Just a clarification: Governments do not “grant” a citizen his rights, they can only restrict or remove them.

shame on you for bring this meandering thread to a point :)

The legal scholarship over the last 20 years has been almost UNANANIMOUS in finding that the Second Amendment is an individual right that is unconnected with a state militia (and therefore not a collective right)

The ‘Militia’ back then was every able-bodied male over 17.

oh, and it still is… Here is the current us code…

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 >
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

who might the “unorganized militia” be?

I always tell people that if you want to understand the 2nd Amendment… read the delcaration of independence first, then read the Bill of RIGHTS…
paraphrased…
“Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding on what to eat for dinner, Freedom is an armed sheep contesting the outcome” – I forgot who said this…

1. The DC ban will be overturned, but because of special circumstances that might not apply anywhere else in the country.
2. Regulation of the ownership of guns will be constitutional, as long as such regulation doesn’t ban guns for DC residents.
3. The decision will be very tightly crafted and will not end the controversy.

Let me expand my point.

What are the “special circumstances?” DC is not a state but a federal enclave, negating the 9th and 10th Amendments. The reason that is the case is because CONGRESS is empowered:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district… (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17)

Not being a state makes it tougher for DC to prevail, IMHO.

I’m predicting that the decision will be not sweeping enough to apply it beyond DC. Chicago’s ban will not fall (though it should).

I’m predicting also that the decision will allow “reasonable” regulation of ownership of handguns including registration.

I’m making these predictions because even if the Court tosses the DC ban (or if they do not), they will avoid like the plague making it a universal overthrow (or upholding) of all gun control laws in the country and will craft it so as to limit it to DC only. Just as they have done 95 other times since 1820 on issues concerning guns and gun ownership. Yes, you read that correctly. Contrary to what the MSM claims, the court has seen the issue some 95 times before, in one form or another. And because they have not given an unambiguous ruling, that’s why the issue isn’t settled.

The legal scholarship over the last 20 years has been almost UNANANIMOUS in finding that the Second Amendment is an individual right that is unconnected with a state militia (and therefore not a collective right). The historical scholarship has similarly shown that this is what the Founders intended. And since Micheal Bellesiles’ so-called “history” was shown to be an outright fraud, there is no opposing view from historians anymore.

The Court reads the papers, and knows that gun control is a failure in DC (after all, they live and work in DC). They also know that 48 states allow some form of legal concealed carrying of handguns. If they don’t know already, they will take judicial notice that gun ownership deters crimes, the pro-gun rights briefs will insure that. They know that there are some 85 million guns owners and 250 million firearms in America (the NRA will insure that). and they will know about the Time Magazine study that claimed that 42% of American households possess one or more firearms.

Sanford Levinson, in his ground breaking law review article The Embarrassing Second Amendment (Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659) first blew the lid off the “collective rights” theory in a major way almost 2 decades ago. He discusses why the Court is reluctant to rule on the Second Amendment.

You can go read the article, but Levinson lists the type of modalities that go into USSC decisions. They are:

1) textual argument — appeals to the unadorned language of the text; [31]

2) historical argument — appeals to the historical background of the vision being considered, whether the history considered be general, such as background but clearly crucial events (such as the American Revolution). or specific appeals to the so-called intentions of framers; [32]

3) structural argument — analyses inferred from the particular structures established by the Constitution, including the tripartite division of the national government; the separate existence of both state and nation as political entities; and the structured role of citizens within the political order; [33]

4) doctrinal argument — emphasis on the implications of prior cases decided by the Supreme Court; [34]

5) prudential argument — emphasis on the consequences of adopting a proferred decision in any given case; [35]

6) ethical argument — reliance on the overall “ethos” of limited government as centrally constituting American political culture. [36]

Knowing what these are can give insight on how the court might rule.

On issue of the Second Amendment, all but the “prudential” argument clearly and I think, unambiguously, favors the NRA’s position and the position of right to keep and bear arms advocates. DC’s only argument is that irrespective of anything else, that their ban has lowered violent crime, or so they indicated in the earlier cases. No doubt they will claim that tossing the ban will result in “blood in the streets.” Neither argument holds water, in point of fact. See John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime.”

Logic dictates that the USSC will see things gun owner’s way, but ideology seems to count more with the liberal “living document” justices than logic or Founder’s intent. Accordingly, I’m thinking that it will be a 5 to 4 decision. And, as usual, it will depend upon that certain “swing vote.”

Therefore, for gun owners, this is a crap shoot.

Regardless how it ends up, the struggle between gun owners and gun grabbers will go on.

even the Congress has to follow the Constitution.

Romeo13 on November 21, 2007 at 1:36 AM

Will someone please tell them that?

Cross dressing. Check.

This shouldn’t be considered an endorsement of Rudy, but enough already with the crossdressing theme.

So what if the man’s a prominent member of the Milton Berle Fan Club?

Put it to sleep people.

. I just saw an espisode of Penn and Teller’s Bullsh*t.

Enrique on November 20, 2007 at 2:40 PM

.

Hey! That was on cable at the Holiday Inn Express I stayed in last night.

Buy Danish on November 20, 2007 at 7:05 PM

Sigh…. if you choose to vote for a less than palatable candidate, that your choice… I WILL not vote for Rudi.

If the Repubs put him up as the candidate? They make THEIR choice.

As to the territory arguement…

First off… even if its on a government reservation, then probable cause rules still apply. You CAN’T for instance, search base housing without a warrant… you CAN’T just pull over a car and search it (unless its random, or you have cause)…

don’t know where you get your facts, but the US Constitution is still in place on Federal grounds.

Crap… by your definition than ALL the Federal property would be an unconstituional zone… like National Parks? BLM Land? sorry… you’re just plain wrong… even the Congress has to follow the Constitution.

Hypocrisy anyeveryone!?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 20, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Sorry. But I’m sure I don’t have to explain a target of opportunity to you.

;>

has Rudy been stronger on the issue than Hillary? I’m not aware that Hillary was a party to the lawsuits against the gun manufacturers as Rudy was. Rudy is worse on the issue than Hillary—that is, unless one is inclined to trust politicians.

FloatingRock on November 20, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Glacier don’t need to be party to no lawsuits.
She brings armored vehicles and chemical weapons to the Party.

Party here.

Party there.