Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the decision in a key 2008 gun rights case.(Photo: Paul Morigi, Getty Images)
USA Today
Guns are on the docket in Congress and dozens of state legislatures. Can the Supreme Court be far behind?
The court may decide as early as Monday to consider whether the Second Amendment's right to keep a gun for self-defense extends outside the home.
The case under consideration is a challenge to New York's law that requires "proper cause" to carry a weapon in public. Ten states, including California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maryland, have similar restrictions. Most have been challenged in court.
Whether it grants the petition from New York or waits for another case, the court is virtually certain to weigh in soon. That's because lower federal courts have issued split decisions on state laws designed to restrict the prevalence of handguns on the streets.
I was hoping they wouldn't vote on this until the balance on the Supreme Court changed. It goes to show you the capricious and political aspect of these votes. It's simply a Question of Balance.
It's exactly a question of balance--checks and balances, not some damned hippie music, either. The appeals courts exist to restrain government when it gets uppity.
ReplyDeleteYou're too young to know anything about that damned hippie music.
Delete1. You don't know how old I am.
Delete2. You neglect the existence of radio, of store speakers, of the Internet, and many other sources.
3. You neglect the fact that I know how to do research.
No, no, no. I ain't gonna do it. I have spewed enough socio-ideological offal for now.
Delete1. You are no child. Considering your beginnings, you have made immense progress, and have made a genuine contribution to humanity (often at the relative expense of oneself).
2. I appreciate western music (Jazz, Rock, Neo-Classical), among other "imperialist" amenities, Coca Cola, Soviet Import Pepsi, Thumbs Up, Cadillacs (1952-1976), Pre-Bloc Skodas (the inspiration for the abhorrent "Peoples Cars" that plague the roads), Colts, Winchester, Brownings, Webbleys, so I cannot make the claim that vastly inferior domestic products, the philistine's excuse for music, or socio-political dogma, or the affront to the aesthetic senses that is the domestic system.
3. The fact that you do research is VERY apparent to anyone who does not hide behind some agenda.
If you appreciate hippie music, then you must support an environment in which it may prosper. Look at the result of control, take for instance this abominable result of State censorship:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2bKLqUKb9w
E.N., that was bizarre, even for you.
DeleteHoly crap, what's happened to E.N.? He just tore off the mask and admitted he's been trolling us? What has the world come to!
DeleteShould be amusing:
ReplyDelete"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."
Will Scalia show he is a real asshole the way Alito did by upholding the Civic Right interpretation in Rybar, yet vote for the PoS called District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and then writing another piece of Bullshit on his own called McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010).
In short, Scalia will show he can't follow his own pronouncements on the Constitution.
He's an originalist all right--original to his own interpretation of the Constitution.
Laci, why are you posting anonymously?
DeleteBecause we hurt his feelings last time he posted this kind of inane bullshit.
DeleteComputer-Trained rednecks would do well to listen to their betters. Not that that has happened for the past 236 years..........
DeleteMcDonald and Heller showed that SCOTUS has figured out what "keep" means, in "keep and bear arms." Soon, perhaps, we'll know whether or not they've figured out "bear" in that context.
ReplyDeleteNot optimistic on "shall not be infringed," but that seems to give nearly everyone in government significant trouble.
Well, guess the suspense will be maintained a while longer . . .
ReplyDelete