Wednesday, March 19, 2008

"Heller" Goes to Washington, DC (District of Crime)

The Supreme Court has now heard the arguments in the "Heller" case. I was surprised that they agreed to hear the case at all, since they have a long history of ignoring Second Amendment cases. Either they think they have figured out how to weasel their way out of making a real ruling, or they have a "fix" in place. Perhaps they will view it so narrowly that they will claim that the ruling can't be applied to any other case.

What I don't expect is that anything substantive will change. As I said once before:

"They could say that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but of
course the gun ban doesn't violate that in any way since (...insert twisted
justification of your choice here...). They could rule that the right to keep
and bear arms is a collective right and so only applies to "militias" controlled
by the villains themselves. I don't think the Supremes will have the integrity
to rule against the villains who want to keep DC helpless."


I have long been of the opinion that:

"If they flat-out state that there is no Right to Keep and Bear Arms, they know
they face an armed revolution. If they admit that the Second Amendment means
what it plainly says, they will be admitting that every victim disarmament
scheme that has ever been perpetrated on America is illegal, and therefore null
and void. .....The lie is that you need it 'interpreted' by legal scholars. You
do not. The authors wrote it for everyone. That includes YOU."


Judging by the DC mayor's desperate verbal flatulence in support of his little empire of tyranny, interesting times may be ahead.

____________________________________

3 comments:

  1. Did you listen to the actual oral arguments before the Supreme Court? I have the link posted on lastfreevoice.com if you haven't heard it yet. There is also a link to the transcript, for anyone who doesn't have speakers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I listened to as much as I could bear on C-SPAN.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You should listen to the entire thing. Listening to only part of it doesn't tell you anything, since it is normal for Supreme Court justices to ask questions as the devil's advocate. They examine the issue from all possible sides, including sides which haven't been presented or sufficiently presented, before making a decision; it's not like any other court.

    For that reason, listening to only part of it is most times extremely misleading, so you can't really formulate an opinion without listening to the entire hearing. Since you are not accustomed to such things, I would strongly recommend you read along with the transcript as you are listening to it.

    I think you'll find it's well worth the time you'll spend.

    ReplyDelete