Guys the thing that needs to be rememberd most is this about the Courts and the Constitution:

 

Interpretation of the Constitution is open to interpretation.

 

 

There is nothing in Article III that tells Judges they must interpret the Constitution as a Strict or Loose Constructionist.

 

And TTC, Freedom of Religion has two clauses: Freedom of Religion, and Freedom from religion- The establishment clause.

I think this court ruling COULD be one of the most monumental in awhile.

Interpretation of the Constitution is open to interpretation.

Didn't Yogi Berra say this? I nominate this for "Quote of the Day."

Do those of you who believe that there is a private right to own and possess firearms believe that that right can be abridged, for any reason?

Do those of you who believe that there is a private right to own and possess firearms believe that that right can be abridged, for any reason?

Off of the top of my head, no. Martial law was the primary reason for the 2nd amendment.

Do those of you who believe that there is a private right to own and possess firearms believe that that right can be abridged, for any reason?

Can be? Yes

 

Should be? No

Do those of you who believe that there is a private right to own and possess firearms believe that that right can be abridged, for any reason?

I do not belive that people have an individual right according to the way I read the Second Amendment, but if I did belive that, the right according to the exact same way I read the Second Amendment, "...shall not be infringed."

Does anyone know (is it even possible) to know who voted to grant Cert?

OK, then, for those of you that believe that the right should not be infringed for any reason, I take it then that you also believe that convicted felons should be able to own and possess firearms, those with domestic violence orders should be able to own and possess firearms, etc. etc.?

I think your point is well taken Hearsay.

Does anyone know (is it even possible) to know who voted to grant Cert?

 

Its a fairly complex procedure. In brief summary, the Court gets about 8000 petitions per year. It used to be that each Justices' law clerk reviewed each petition and there were 9 different briefs on why cert should or should not be granted. Since the Burger Court, the Supremes have maintained a "cert pool" of all of the Justices' law clerks, where each petition is randomly assigned to one clerk to write an opinion. All of the Justices' clerks participate in this except Stevens'.

 

From there, the Chief Justice creates a discussion list of cases up for discussion. Any justice may add a case to that list. If you're not on the list, you're automatically denied. The Justices conference the list at their regular annual conference, and choose a list of cases to grant cert to. 4 Justices, by custom, must agree to hear a case to grant cert. Recently, they've been hearing around 95 cases per year.

 

I don't know whom was on the "rule of four" for this case, but I'll see if I can find out.

OK, then, for those of you that believe that the right should not be infringed for any reason, I take it then that you also believe that convicted felons should be able to own and possess firearms, those with domestic violence orders should be able to own and possess firearms, etc. etc.?

Yes. Once you're sentence is up, you should be able to go back to being a normal citizen with both the right to vote and own a firearm. If you're still a danger to society, then your butt should be in jail.

Yes. Once you're sentence is up, you should be able to go back to being a normal citizen with both the right to vote and own a firearm. If you're still a danger to society, then your butt should be in jail.

 

There is no sentence for DVO Respondents. Those are not crimes, but we take their guns away. We take them away from convicted felons, whether they are in jail, probated, paroled, etc. There is no law that changes their citizenship status, they are the same as you and I except that they have been convicted of felonies. If we take away their second Amendment rights upon conviction, should they also lose their 1st, 4th, 14th amendment rights? Why is the second amendment right more or less worthy of protection?

I would add that the vast majority of things we are convicting people of are non-violent crimes. Drug possession and trafficking, welfare fraud, failure to pay child support, forging documents, theft over a random dollar amount, etc. etc. Should a person be deprived of their firearm because they were convicted of passing fored checks?

I think you all understand the point I am making. We are a nation of laws, and legally, the people who stand up an demand "no exceptions" gun laws are the ones who also typically scream the loudest for exceptions to be made for those we label second-class citizens. I think on this issue there needs to be consistency - either you are a Montana Freemen and you agree a person has a right to bear arms no matter what, or you concede an inherent limitation on the right to bear arms and the question then becomes the LEVEL of regulation.