Judges matter.
But I also said - the fight will now just go asymmetric.
And it will only take a two-judge shift on the court to reverse it.
How long before some commentator from the Left compares this decision to Dred Scott?
If you'd like more details - see SCOTUS Blog.
The Brady Campaign's first order of business - not going out of business, but raising money to defend their laws (most of which were given support from the Majority, I would note). Heh. I'm sure the NRA will hit me up for money for the same purpose...
Heh. Justice Stevens makes an amazing assertion:
Justice John Paul Stevens 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."
Um, Mr. Justice, sir - that's the whole point of the Constitution - to limit the role, scope, and power of government... because the Founders were well aware that the natural tendency of government is exactly the opposite. Hence why the Government's role was laid out, and bounded. Apparently you missed that in your Constitutional Law classes?
The whining starts.
Please, media, please report how many guns are being bought. Feel free to report any fear by those who didn't buy one that they will be accidentally shot by a nervous neighbor. Just to remind the thugs that they might get purposefully shot by a nervous neighbor.
They didn't call the Colt .45 "The Peacemaker" for nothing.
5-4 in favor of a critical part of the Bill of Rights. Elections matter; indeed.
The 2nd Amendment reserves to WE THE PEOPLE the right to possess critical tools to CHECK the power of the Federal government.
Jason, d'you really think the streets are going to run red with more blood than runs there now?
Do you *really* think that letting people like you (if you choose to) own a gun, is going to make it *worse* there?
The places with the worst gun violence usually have the strictest laws regarding gun ownership.
Which doesn't really mean that the restrictions are causing the violence (i.e., the law abiding unarmed and helpless) as much as it means that... restricting gun ownership focuses on the symptom, not the problem.
Ask the Brits. They banned guns, so people started stabbing each other. They're considering banning knives over two inches long, any knives, even kitchen knives, because people are stabbing each other.
I predict, should they ban knives, they'll be banning cross-tip screwdrivers, awls, and ice picks next.
They're seemingly spending more effort of determining the optimum knife length (to avoid organ punctures and deep vessel cutting) than they are on figuring out why their thugs want to stab people. Because, clearly, if we take away the tool they'll stop. Oh wait, that hasn't worked yet.The problem is... why do these people commit violence on each other.
Not which tool they use.
To ban the tool is simply to take the easy way out, and relieves you of responsibility, because... "Well we did something!"Amazing indeed, that a trained constitutional scholar would say such a thing. I think that frightens me more than the simple fact of the 5-4 split.
Dawnsblood: what was the vote in the Kelo decision? Or the decision that upheld the McCin-Feingold Abomination?
Let's hope they do...
"Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857). Chief Justice Taney said that Negroes could not be "citizens," because if they were, they would have the right to vote, to assemble, to speak on political subjects, to travel freely, and "to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Now, let's see if the Armorer wants to address the true and full description of those firearms that the MSM abbreviates into the term 'Saturday Night Specials'? Always fun to watch the grabbers splutter when they learn of the true term....
Oh yes, and I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the vast majority of gun laws were written and enacted into 'law' by.... Democrats, as was the above cited term.
They should. IF, you are going to cede the power to the State to execute it's own citzens, then such a terminal use of power should be open and viewed by the public in which name it is executed.
Set the scaffolds up on the local County Courthouse green and let justice be done. The people should see what is being done on their behalf and in their name.
No more hiding away behind prison walls and open to observation by only a select few.
And yes, the death penalty is Constitutional. If you don't like the Ammendment, much in the same manner some uninformed and misguided folks don't like the 2nd Ammendment, then go through the proper procedures to repeal the Ammendment. Til' then, it stands as written and stop cherry picking.
As a side note and unfortunately, it's most likely not Constitutional, but in the case of child rapists, I'd like to see them straightjacketed and placed into the custody of the immediate family of the victim for about a half hour inside a sound-proof room.
Then, whatever is left can be sentenced to kick their heels in the wind from the County scaffolds.
How... Shari'a of you.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
And, how snarky of you....
You'll note that I made the distinction that the actual execution would take place on the County Courthouse green and as such, would be public.
Or is it that you somehow feel that State executions in the publics name should not be... public?
The messages man, we have to send a message! Or is that too PC?
The issue is that DC can obey the law while really not changing very much at all.
We shall see but don't hold your breath for any real changes.
Ed - we have a decision that will make it harder for the antis to just take 'em away. However, as I said in another post - now things go asymmetric in how the antis attack the issue.
It may not be the Victory Parade down the boulevard, but it also isn't a Waterloo for us gun owners.
Funny how many people own guns in this country and have managed not to kill people or be killed. Shockingly bad taste for them not to live down to your expectations, I'm sure.
For that sentiment, I make NO apologies.
The issue was capital punishment for child rapists and not one of executing people for not having a beard or burhka of the proper length. Totally different and you know it.
And, for the record, you will NEVER see me willingly venture inside a soccer stadium... bleagh!
Football, the real kind is only a couple months away.
I need my bread and circuses don'tcha know?
The family can also forgive the perp, and he can walk away, too. Though, in the case in question, prolly not.
Frankly, I don't have a problem with an aggrieved family member being offered the opportunity to pull the trigger, flick a switch or yank a lever. They can always decline and let the 'official' State executioner perform his duties.
They can forgive the perp all they wish, but let the sentence be carried out and bury the sumbitch in an umarked paupers grave. Though perhaps cremation would be a less expensive alternative for us overburdened taxpayers to pay. Good riddance to bad rubbish.