HOLY ****!!

On 30 Jun 2008 12:49:14 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:12a7641l7u15d6t8mvr8vvfrsl07gsjh9c@
4ax.com:

NOTE - This is what AP is quoting from the dissent. I have a copy, but
I haven't read the entire thing yet...

-- Begin AP quote:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and
Breyer, wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200
years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to
elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He further writes that such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

-- End AP quote

Even totally discounting the Second itself, apparently Justice Stevens
hasn't heard of (particularly) Hamilton, Jefferson, et al...and shows
no
understanding of what "the Framers" thought with regard to the "Bill of
Rights."

This could be among the most stunning opinions ever issued...and if I
were Obama, I'd keep my mouth absolutely shut unless it was to denounce
the dissent from a purely legal standpoint. The Dems oughta get busy
thanking some higher power that Stevens was a Ford appointment.

Sheesh,
R



I'm a shooter, but I don't know how this outcome impacts my feelings
about walking around in DC. I hope the locals can figure out some way to
deal with their gun problem in light of this decision.

A couple of things: First, IMO, the majority was correct, but, um, not
as correct as the minority was stunningly incorrect. Second nothing in
the Constitution prohibits, generally, "reasonable gun control": carry
laws, registration, permitting for concealed carry, very tough laws with
regard to "gun crimes," etc., but outright _bans_, such as the DC law,
are clearly against both the words and intent of the Constitution.
There's nothing preventing DC from passing reasonable gun-control laws
like banning the general "public" possession of them (other than
concealed with a permit), reasonable transport laws (gun and ammo
separate and secured, to and from a place of legal use, if without a
permit), allowing businesses to ban all possession in their premise with
a simple signage, etc.

FWIW, a couple if anecdotes involving similar law changes in Florida -
when, by a screw-up the legislature, it was legal for an entire year to
walk down the street, even into a bank, with a gun in hand, and despite
all sorts of predictions of "blood in the streets," not a single crime
or even accident was attributed to it. Second, when it got straightened
out and Florida became a "right to carry" state (like some 30-35 others,
they started a program to track crimes and accidents. They shut the
program down after they had under 10 "incidents" to track over, IIRC, a
2-4 period (and in none of the "crimes" was anyone injured).

IAC, even if one does assume it to mean that only militias (and
"regulated" in the late 1700s meant "trained"/"drilled") are to have
arms, and for no other use other than while called to duty, the members
of the militia (now, much of the citizenry) would still need to "keep"
arms so as to "bear" them when called up. Moreover, the idea of a total
ban on weapons would have been considered preposterous, even dangerous,
in the late 1700s in either the US or England.

Most importantly, IMO, the "Bill of Rights," again, isn't a list of "the
(only) rights" of the people, it's a list of specific restrictions on
the Government. Plus, "the people" are perfectly free to repeal the
second. If this or that politician thinks that people today would
support such, I'd encourage them to take public steps toward that
end...and start planning for what they wish to do after they lose the
next election...