The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
What an utterly ridiculous argument and a preposterously false choice. "guns on one side and life on the other"? Can guns and life NEVER be on the same side Mr. Justice?Page 14 lines 19-25 wrote:BREYER: Now, think of this, too: That when you have the First Amendment, or some of the other amendments, there is always a big area where it's free speech versus a whole lot of things, but not often free speech versus life. When it's free speech versus life, we very often decide in favor of life. Here every case will be on one side guns, on the other side human life.
Nice counter point to Breyer's ridiculous point that a statistical analysis somehow gives Chicago the right to ban certain guns.Page 16 lines 9-15 wrote:SCALIA: There is a lot of statistical disagreement on whether the Miranda rule saves lives or not, whether it results in the release of dangerous people who have confessed to their crime but the confession can't be used. We don't -- we don't resolve questions like that on the basis of statistics, do we?
What is he doing still arguing the Militia Clause? That argument was decided in Heller. 2A RKBA is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. You lost. Get over it. (note: this line of argument actually continues straight through page 28 line 18)Pages 26 lines 24-25 and 27 lines 1-5 wrote:BREYER: Here we have right in the amendment written a militia-related clause. And the way that -- the way -- the way that the right might be incorporated in respect to that is light years different. From the way it might be interpreted if you think what it is, is the right to have a gun to shoot a burglar. They are just two separate things.
Where is Suzanna Hupp when you need her? It's not about militias, it's not about burglars, and it's certainly not about hunting ... RKBA is about all of us out here protecting ourselves from all of you up there.Page 43 lines 8-22 wrote:BREYER: let's make up an imaginary importance of ordered liberty chart, and we give it to James Madison and the other framers. And he would say insofar as that right to bear arms is important for the purpose of maintaining the militia, it's high on the ordered liberty chart. Insofar as the right to bear arms is there to shoot burglars, it's low on the ordered liberty chart.
One of many great examples of Justice Scalia, and to a lesser extent Roberts and Kennedy just OWNING the counsel arguing the City of Chicago's side.Page 56 line 23 through Page 57 line 5 wrote:JUSTICE SCALIA: See, the right to keep and bear arms is right there, it's right there in the Bill of Rights. Where do you find the right to self-defense?
MR. FELDMAN: Well, I -
JUSTICE SCALIA: You -- you want us to impose that one on the States but not -- not the explicit guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. That seems very strange.
And when you read all the way to the end, you'll find that he eventualy does say substantially that.KD5NRH wrote:Haven't made it that far in, yet, but am I the only one that thinks, on pages 6 and 7, Scalia's trying to lead Gura into saying "It may not be the easy way, but it's the right way?"
Oh, Lord. Here we go...What is it that has...been caused by it--Sonia Sotomayor
The justices who favor an argument frequently treat the counsel most harshly, as a way of working all the bugs out before they retire to private session.KD5NRH wrote:Haven't made it that far in, yet, but am I the only one that thinks, on pages 6 and 7, Scalia's trying to lead Gura into saying "It may not be the easy way, but it's the right way?"
Thanks for the heads up tomneal! I've been wondering when the decision would come down.tomneal wrote:Looks like we'll get the decision from the Supreme court on Monday 6/28/2010.
Oh, wow. Totally forgot about that. I hope he's in the minority. Although, it would be nice if he were in the majority with the other justices explaining why the 2A also applies to the states and it were 9-0.ErnieP wrote:Monday is Justice Stevens last day on the bench....
What gets me most about the legal opposition that insists that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militia is that they fail to admit that even then citizens are allowed to keep and bear arms. If you concede that the militia clause is valid, how are the people supposed to get the guns to serve in the militia? From the government? Then you've completely divorced the prefatory clause from the operative clause. Somehow the guns necessary to serve in the militia are to magically appear when needed? It defies logic."Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."