SCOTUS to rule on 2nd Amendment

[Merkinball]

Obama has come out in support of the opinion. Perhaps it is because, based on the watered-down majority opinion, it appears 9 Justices believe policy supercedes the Constitution.

I dunno what Obama's position really is though. It seems to depend on the audience. Ya know, one day he supports the decision to overturn on constitutional grounds, a few weeks ago he supported the ban itself based on constitutional grounds. Ya know.

February 12th, 2008, during a forum sponsored by ABC TV and ThePolitico.com, the moderator is Leon Harris: "One other issue that's of great importance here in the District as well as gun control. You said in Idaho recently, quoting here, 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.' But you do support the DC handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How can you reconcile those two different positions?"

OBAMA: Well, because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it is important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership genuinely. And a lot of people, law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is a result of illegal handgun use. And so there's nothing wrong I think with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets

Then yesterday in Chicago.

An unidentified reporter said,

Quote:
"The Supreme Court's expected to rule tomorrow on the DC gun ban. Can you review for us where you stand on that?"

OBAMA: Why don't I wait until the decision comes out and then I will comment on it, as opposed to trying to prognosticate what the Supreme Court is going to decide tomorrow.

REPORTER: You commented on it before you -- you support the DC gun ban.

OBAMA: What I've said is that I do not -- what I've said is that I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment --

And now today,

Quote:
Bloomberg TV, Peter Cook: "The court today, a very important ruling in regard to the handgun law in DC, 5-4 ruling, what's your reaction?"

OBAMA: I believe that the Second Amendment means something, that it is an individual right, and that's what the Supreme Court held, so I agree with that aspect of the opinion. What I've also said is that every individual right can be bound by the interests of the community at large. And the Supreme Court agreed with that as well. It looks to me that the DC handgun ban overshot the runway; that it went beyond constitutional limits.

Yyyyyyyyyyyup.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Obama just remembers what happened to Gore and the Dems in 2000. Their support for gun control and the Assault Weapons Ban cost them dearly.

Obama is defenitly pro-gun control and anti-right to keep and bear arms.

 

[JollyRoger]

Obama is exactly where Scalia is today - you can have a gun in your home, but not necesarily on the street.

 

[Merkinball]

"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." - John Paul Stevens

Wow...

Speechless.

 

[Merkinball]

Obama is exactly where Scalia is today - you can have a gun in your home, but not necesarily on the street.

Who really knows exactly where Obama is today. Did you read the whole thing? Have you contemplated what he said and its time span? The man doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. Not one clue. Just recently he said he supported the ban on a constitutional basis. Now he's flip-flopped and supported this ruling...on a constitutional basis. His comments yesterday are absolutely hysterical. He didn't want to say his opinion because he feared it would condradict the ruling. He waited for the ruling so he could formulate a quasi-politically correct statement AFTER the decision came down.

This guy is a joke. And if he appoints a justice, and this crap gets heard again...man...s--ts going down.

 

[JollyRoger]

Who really knows exactly where Obama is today.

Right. Like I said, he stands eactly in the same place as Scalia.

 

[Merkinball]

Right. Like I said, he stands eactly in the same place as Scalia.

If he really stood in the same place as Scalia, he would have said so yesterday before the ruling came down. He wouldn't have fed reporters that horrible line of BS.

I don't see why you are in so much denile here. Obama formed his opinion directly around the ultimate decision.

There is no consistency here. None whatsoever.

How someone like you, could sit here, and tell me...that you firmly believe what Obama said today. It's just complete intellectual dishonesty.

It would be like me saying, "McCain stands firmly w/ or w/out ethanol." Simply because it's the position he took today.

 

[JollyRoger]

If he really stood in the same place as Scalia, he would have said so yesterday before the ruling came down.

The ruling came down as granting an individual right (which Obama seems to have previously endorsed) with the right of the government to keep most ingfringements in place (assault weapons ban, licensing requirements, etc.). If most Freepers actually read the opinion and comprehended the implications, they would be ready to tar and feather Scalia right now. It took me about 30 seconds to read the Court's syllabus to the opinion to realize that Scalia basically stated his majority would uphold most of the liberal agenda on gun regulation. What's there for Obama to disagree with that? Just because righties think they have won the war when they lost it with one deceptively token victory doesn't mean that Obama has to buy into the rightie mis- or non-reading of the case.

 

[MobBoss]

Right. Like I said, he stands eactly in the same place as Scalia.

Lets see where he stands when they take on the same kind of gun ban in Chicago...you know the one that Obama helped enact...

 

[JollyRoger]

Lets see where he stands when they take on the same kind of gun ban in Chicago...you know the one that Obama helped enact...

The Supreme Court likely won't grant cert. The Circuit Court that gets this will probably cut back the Chicago law back a bit, but leave it mostly standing, just like the Supremes did with the DC laws. Either side may beg the Supremes for cert, but won't get it granted.

 

[slothman]

Most people who are against guns seem to be for
statistical reasons, e.g. 70% of people are killed by
guns or something or maybe that guns aren't needed.
Is anyone for gun control but doesn't use those reasons.

 

[sonorakitch]

If most Freepers actually read the opinion and comprehended the implications, they would be ready to tar and feather Scalia right now.

Well, what did you expect? The case was about the DC Handgun Ban JR, not any other specific ban. The opinion addressed The DC handgun ban and trigger lock requirement, which obviously was struck down. Did you expect the court to address the machine gun ban?

Really, nobody should be surprised by this ruling. It was expected. What I am surprised about is the number of dissenters (4) and the way in which they dissented.

I guarantee you the NRA and others will attempt to use this to strike down other gun control legislation. Only then will we know how ironclad this decision today really is.

~Chris

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, what did you expect? The case was about the DC Handgun Ban JR, not any other specific ban. The opinion addressed The DC handgun ban and trigger lock requirement, which obviously was struck down. Did you expect the court to address the machine gun ban?

~Chris

In theory I should be suprised that the dicta did address such a ban and indicated that it most likely would stand, but I predicted that the opinion would end up much like it has (except I expected some concurrences)

 

[Merkinball]

The ruling came down as granting an individual right (which Obama seems to have previously endorsed) - JollyRoger

Except when he was in Idaho when he clearly said that he didn't feel this way. He felt that it DIDN'T grant individual rights to posess arms because he believed that the DC Gun ban was constitutional. That's not a previous endorsement of rights to the individual. That's an endorsement of a gun ban. And using the constitution to justify it no less.

What's there for Obama to disagree with that? - JR

Because it struck down a total handgun ban in DC that he supported on a constitutional basis.

Just because righties think they have won the war when they lost it with one deceptively token victory doesn't mean that Obama has to buy into the rightie mis- or non-reading of the case. - JR

Don't you point your finger at me. The fact that this was 5-4 is absolutely sickening. I know we haven't won anything. Obama's getting elected, you're getting another nut job ignorant history rewriting judge, and handgun bans, gun bans, and more centralized government control is just going to proliferate across this country. Kennedy is bad enough. One more Ginsberg is going to be the acceleration of the beginning of the end.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

For those who haven't read this thread since the opinion dropped, here's a summary:

Liberal: Blargh, blargh, blargh . . . conservative justices are evil.
JollyRoger: Read the opinion. It doesn't really change much.

Conservative: Blargh, blargh, blargh . . . liberals are evil.
JollyRoger: Read the opinion. It doesn't really change much.

Cleo

 

[Bugfatty300]

Most people who are against guns seem to be for
statistical reasons, e.g. 70% of people are killed by
guns or something or maybe that guns aren't needed.
Is anyone for gun control but doesn't use those reasons.

No. Statistics are against them. They use emotion and scare tactics to furthur their ideas or they just plain don't like guns or people having them.

 

[JollyRoger]

Because it struck down a total handgun ban in DC that he supported on a constitutional basis.

It didn't strike down the entire ban. Heller still has to show he is qualified for the license and he is still only licensed for use in his home.

Don't you point your finger at me. The fact that this was 5-4 is absolutely sickening. I know we haven't won anything. Obama's getting elected, you're getting another nut job ignorant history rewriting judge, and handgun bans, gun bans, and more centralized government control is just going to proliferate across this country. Kennedy is bad enough. One more Ginsberg is going to be the acceleration of the beginning of the end.

It's the 5 we (gun rights advocates) should be concerned with. The majority opinion looks pretty clear to me that the Court is willing to nip aroung the edges of the most onerous infringements, but no more than that. The 5 gave us a token victory, but that is as far as they will go. Even on incorporation, Scalia had to drop in a footnote that hints that maybe he doesn't have Kennedy on board with him. When I read the syllabus this morning, one of my first thoughts was that Obama may actually say he supports the opinion.

As for appointments, it's the liberals that will fall off the bench in the next 4-8 years. The conservative 4 plus Kennedy can probably all hang on for another 4-8 years. Kennedy and Scalia are the old folks among the conservatives, but they are still relatively young and healthy as far as Suprme Court Justices go.

 

[sonorakitch]

For those who haven't read this thread since the opinion dropped, here's a summary:

Liberal: Blargh, blargh, blargh . . . conservative justices are evil.
JollyRoger: Read the opinion. It doesn't really change much.

Conservative: Blargh, blargh, blargh . . . liberals are evil.
JollyRoger: Read the opinion. It doesn't really change much.

Cleo

No offense Cleo, but you crazy if you don't think this ruling changes much. There has been a large element of this country which has promoted the idea of a handgun ban and this decision negates that.

This is pretty big.

~Chris

 

[JollyRoger]

No offense Cleo, but you crazy if you don't think this ruling changes much. There has been a large element of this country which has promoted the idea of a handgun ban and this decision negates that.

This is pretty big.

~Chris

Yeah, you can now apply for a license to have a gun you can't take out of your home. That is big.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

sonorakitch,

I just don't think a handgun ban, except in cities, was ever going to happen. As part of the "large element of this country" that would support such a ban, it's not even on my radar. You guys won the gun issue a few decades ago. Good work. As JollyRoger has said countless times, outright bans are now unconstitutional (possibly only by Congress), but there's still going to be a lot of infringing going on.

Cleo