Comments on: Roberts on the second amendment

By: SayUncle » Parker Stuff

SayUncle » Parker Stuff — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:58:07 +0000

[...] didn’t take it then. But now we have some new judges and one of those (the chief justice) understands Miller. We’ll [...]

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:48:16 +0000

countertop:

I agree that Feingold’s getting serious about a run, but I don’t think he’s altering his position on guns for this purpose. As I understand it, his record has been pretty solidly pro-gun throughout his career.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:01:44 +0000

A couple of weeks ago on FoxNews, Bork himself said Roberts shouldn’t answer questions like this, and the only reason Bork answered them on abortion was because he had to based on what he had written on the topic. So on all these topics, Roberts has been showing off his encyclopedic knowledge of how past cases have been decided, but has not dropped many clues as to how he would rule himself. I’m cautiously optimistic on this particular issue, though, based on the fact that he corrected Russ Feingold on the meaning of U.S. v. Miller. Most of the appellate judges who adopt the “collective rights” model argue that Miller compels it.

By: Brutal Hugger

Brutal Hugger — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:01:01 +0000

He gave the right answer. Reading between the lines, he sees Emerson as offering weak protection for an individual right. It’s clear he regards this as open judicial territory where he wouldn’t be bound by much in the way of precedent.

I personally would like to see this issue clarified by the court. Win or lose, it’s good for the gun nuts. If the individual right triumphs, gunners win. If the individual right fails, gunners will be galvanized into action and keep their rights via the ballot box and legislatures.

This is an issue of much higher intensity and appeal for gun nuts than for gun grabbers. For gun enthusiasts, it’s a voting issue. For gun controllers, it’s just not that important. For every voter who supports gun control enough to vote on it, I can name five people willing to kill that voter.

Ultimately, this issue is a political loser for the left. The sooner they realize it, the better off we will all be.

By: _Jon

_Jon — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:55:49 +0000

Definately a “politicians” answer. All he said (IMO) was “Yes, it’s an issue.”
He didn’t say which side he was going to take.

On one hand, I’d like to know which way a (potential) judge leans. But on the other, I realize that each case is different and a good judge will make a decision within the limits of the case brought before him or her. In the above-mentioned case, a judge could believe in singular or collective, but if the law specifies a certain firearm as illegal, the singular / collective issue is moot.

That’s just what I think – I could be wrong, but I never are.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:31:12 +0000

It was weasely. I guess they learned from Bork not to actually, you know, answer judicial questions.

By: Thibodeaux

Thibodeaux — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:28:48 +0000

Maybe I’m just not smart enough to understand nuance, but wasn’t that a pretty weasely answer? I mean, the question seemed straightforward enough: Do you think the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right, or not?

Right?

By: countertop

countertop — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:19:46 +0000

Sounds like Feingold is serious about running for president. Now, if only he would recognize the first amendment as an individual right as well.

By: SayUncle » Blog Archive » And Feinstein too

SayUncle » Blog Archive » And Feinstein too — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:10:09 +0000

[...] I mentioned Feingold asking Roberts about the second amendment, TriggerFinger notes that Feinstein asked about the commerce clause and guns (does the prefix Fein mean concerned with guns?). TriggerFinger has some concerns. [...]