Whee! Mandatory gun ownership!

misterpeasea on June 23, 2008 at 3:27 PM

If that’s the case is it a universal right like health care? ‘Cause if so I’ve been eyeing those Mauser rifles in America’s First Freedom Magazine, there are a couple of Glocks and Smiths I’ve been coveting for a while now and, what the heck I’m a sentimental guy, I liked the M4 rifle and the Chek made Kalashnikov I carried in Afganistan too.

Wait, I’ll have to get a new gun safe . . . is that covered under Universal Gun Ownership? If so I might have to tear out the back all of my basement and have a walk in gun safe, yeah.

-That citizens only have a right to private property so long as it can’t be used by somebody else to generate additional tax revenue for the government.

…And I think that that ruling may have been the next progression on the slippery slope that was pioneered by civil-forfeiture laws.

- the right for a mother to abort her baby
- the legitimacy of the federal department of education
- legitimacy for a federal bank
- that terrorists have rights

… don’t hold your breath.

AZ_Redneck on June 23, 2008 at 10:51 PM

-That citizens only have a right to private property so long as it can’t be used by somebody else to generate additional tax revenue for the government.

The Heller case is strong, and that it’s near-impossible that 5 judges will willfully misread the plain-as-day text: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Mark Jaquith on June 23, 2008 at 7:11 PM

… somewhere in the constitution they “found”

- the right for a mother to abort her baby
- the legitimacy of the federal department of education
- legitimacy for a federal bank
- that terrorists have rights

… don’t hold your breath.

then, i will sit down and figure out if i am an outlaw or will be an outlaw … and if i am to be an outlaw, how much of one i will be.

Amazing. I wonder how long before the libs realize that rocks need to be licensed too.

Limerick on June 23, 2008 at 4:00 PM

No can do. Palestinians need rocks to throw at Israelis. It’s a civil right, donchaknow?

The Heller case is strong, and that it’s near-impossible that 5 judges will willfully misread the plain-as-day text: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Mark Jaquith on June 23, 2008 at 7:11 PM

That’s incredibly naive. The Supreme Court has a long history of willfully misreading plain-as-day text as it suits their political stance and desired outcome.

Why would Roberts, who’s presumably in the majority here, assign an opinion this momentous to Scalia instead of to himself?

It does seem curious to me. I mean, why Scalia? What would an Italian guy from New Jersey know about guns, for goodness sakes? (Rim shot.)

Dark clouds among the silver linings – that’s my job!

After the Gitmo decision I have no confidnce tht the SCOTU will come down on the side of gun rights.

Not sure how that follows. I mean, unless you’re suggesting that the court makes decisions based on how you’ll like them. The Heller case is strong, and that it’s near-impossible that 5 judges will willfully misread the plain-as-day text: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Based on all of that, I’m going for a 9-0 ‘Individual Right’ with a majority “It says what it means and it means what it says” winner take all decision. Now that would be one that people (and not just legal types) would be talking about for generations.
KCSteve on June 23, 2008 at 6:09 PM

Best brace yourself for disappointment. They’ll find a way to weasel out a decision against the DC ban but is too narrow to be a significant precident. That’s how they roll these days- just like a hockey rink: no balls.

True. But if the Court writes a strong individual rights opinion, won’t people in the states have an argument that the second amendment should apply to them too? We really won’t know until we see the opinion.

bigbeas on June 23, 2008 at 5:58 PM

If the Court writes a strong individual rights opinion in spite of the District Clause for Washington D.C., then its logical those same strong individual rights apply to the states.

In other words, if the Feds lack authority to ban guns in those places where they are afforded plenary jurisdiction, such as Washington D.C., then they surly cannot ban guns where they DO NOT have plenary jurisdiction, and they do not have plenary jurisdiction in any of the Fifty-States.

Plenary: Full, entire, complete, absolute, perfect, unqualified. Mashunkashey v. Mashunkashey, 191 Okl. 501, 134 P.2d 976, 979.

It’s based on a couple of observations:

1) The Justices are in it for the glory. They want to be remembered
2) I don’t think any of the current crop are tied to any ‘big name’ decisions (but I could easily be wrong). Even if they are, it’s obviously not common knowledge.
3) Some of them will be leaving soon.

Based on all of that, I’m going for a 9-0 ‘Individual Right’ with a majority “It says what it means and it means what it says” winner take all decision. Now that would be one that people (and not just legal types) would be talking about for generations.

But since it’s pure speculation on my part I’ll be happy if we just get something positive.

Maxx on June 23, 2008 at 3:45 PM

True. But if the Court writes a strong individual rights opinion, won’t people in the states have an argument that the second amendment should apply to them too? We really won’t know until we see the opinion.

Regardless of what any Supreme Court decision says, I will remain armed in my own home. When the 2nd Amendment is so pigeon-holed that it becomes meaningless, its true meaning and purpose will become known. Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding.

OhEssYouCowboys on June 23, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Yep, rulings against the 2nd amendment only increase its measure of importance and relevance, and vice versa.