« « Fun toy | Home | Two of my favorite things » »

16 Responses to “Breaking”

1. DrWyrm Says:
   March 26th, 2010 at 2:35 pm

   Ah, the old “The ban is valid cause no one has them cause they’re banned” argument. One of my favorites.

2. pax Says:
   March 26th, 2010 at 3:08 pm

   As expected.

3. Anon R. D. Says:
   March 26th, 2010 at 3:58 pm

   The appeal is where the real action is here. The sad reality is that most (not all, but most) federal district judges will not take 2A claims seriously until the courts of appeals make clear that they must.

   The D.C. Circuit (i.e., U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) is not a bad court. It gave us the initial pro-2A ruling in Parker v. D.C. that enabled Heller to reach the Supreme Court.

   Much will depend on which three D.C. Circuit judges get drawn as the “panel” that hears this appeal.

4. Fiftycal Says:
   March 26th, 2010 at 7:53 pm

   OK, this one is for most of the marbles. When it gets back to the Supremes, they will have to rule on whether the 2nd applies to only muzzleloaders or real guns.

5. Beaumont Says:
   March 26th, 2010 at 11:20 pm

   The wardens rule on what the inmates may or may not possess, and call it due process. Corrupt systems are constitutionally incapable of producing freedom or justice.

6. Mikee Says:
   March 27th, 2010 at 9:54 am

   Does any other individual right, enumerated in the Constitution, suffer “intermediate scrutiny” from courts? I will have to go to volokh.com to find out, as IANAL, but I don’t think so.

   “Strict scrutiny” is what the courts usually use to test limitations on individual rights, and they find darn few limits that are OK.

   I can use a condom for consensual sex, to protect myself against the possibility of disease or my partner against possible pregnancy, because of Griswold v Connecticut, in which the unenumerated right to privacy enjoyed by all Americans was cited as a reason to use “strict scrutiny” in testing laws that limit individual choices in birth control. But “intermediate scrutiny” is OK for the 2nd Amendment?

   I want whatever prescription that judge is on, because it distorts the heck out of reality.

7. workinwifdakids Says:
   March 27th, 2010 at 11:00 am

   ^ Mongo approve this message.

8. straightarrow Says:
   March 27th, 2010 at 11:20 am

   I believe when Heller was decided that I warned everybody that this was exactly what it would allow. Anybody ready yet to decide I may not be crazy? Just askin’.

9. straightarrow Says:
   March 27th, 2010 at 11:23 am

   It will be tough for the Supremes to overturn this decision because their own words were used in it. “in the home”, “not unlimited”, “reasonable restrictions”. Makes it pretty tough to later come back and say we wussed out and we’re sorry when egos are that big.

10. Matthew Carberry Says:
    March 27th, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    It’s not going to the Supremes next, it’s going to the DC Court of Appeals.

    It will be fairly easy for the CoA to note once the facts are entered (should they so choose politically to do so, which will depend on who catches the case) that AW’s and standard cap mags are in common use and that the proposed restrictions are in the minority among the states, are not the current policy nor position of the US gov’t (Brady expiration and majority of Congress being on record against it) and thus are not truly reasonably related to a government interest.

    Further, Palmer is still pending which challenges the “in the home” restriction in DC.

    This was a political call by a judge who should have probably punted given McDonald and Palmer being only a couple months from decision. Regardless, if it does go to SCOTUS, they don’t have to say “you got us, we’re stuck, we were wrong”, they simply have to say, “you totally misunderstood us knucklehead”.

11. Brad Says:
    March 27th, 2010 at 6:50 pm

    Before SCOTUS hears this case (assuming it’s appealed that far, which is likely), many events will occur first to shape the political battlefield.

    1) The decision of McDonald v Chicago, and the reaction to it. The vote of Sotomayor noteworthy in particular.

    2) The election of 2010. 1994 all over again?

    3) A confirmation fight over a new SCOTUS justice.

    If all goes according to my hopes, the environment during which the SCOTUS review takes place will be much more pro-gun than it is today. In fact I think the Supreme Court would hear the case no earlier than during the presidential election season of 2012!

    Judges do seem to pay attention to popular will, as in the 1937 “switch in time which saved nine”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

12. Brad Says:
    March 27th, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700016846/US-Supreme-Courts-Justice-John-Paul-Stevens-says-he-will-retire-during-Obama-presidency.html

    Supreme Court Justice Stevens says he will retire before 2013, thereby allowing Obama to appoint his replacement.

13. Tirno Says:
    March 27th, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    Brad says: Supreme Court Justice Stevens says he will retire before 2013, thereby allowing Obama to appoint his replacement.

    That’ll work out great if his party is not in control of the Senate, or has enough party defectors that will hold out for kick-backs in return for sufficiently large take-home pork.

14. Blounttruth Says:
    March 28th, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Will be interesting to see what the warrants conatain. Perhaps Washington is not waiting for the SCOTUS ruling, or perhaps there was an attack planned by domestic terrorrists

    FBI raid Huron for militia members last night/.
    http://www.sanduskyregister.com/articles/2010/03/27/front/doc4bae9ec40d713435821346.txt

    Hammond Illinois site raided, militia arrested. Saturday night.
    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/03/fbi-agents-raid-hammond-location.html

    Militia radio shut down since Saturday night. Broadcast about roundups silenced.
    http://www.militiaradio.com/updated-sitrep/

    Saturday night raid on Michigan militia.
    http://www.wxyz.com/news/story/FBI-Conducts-Raids/eE6ZljBWa0uFOMUdtOLzvw.cspx

    Homeland security/FBI news broadcast Saturday night raid on militia members.
    Part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uyak-E5gTAY
    Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJk3TcMRg5E

    Warrants are sealed and will bereveald on Monday

15. Shootin' Buddy Says:
    March 28th, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    Hammond is in Indiana, not Illinois. It is an “L” shaped tetris piece snuggled up to Chicago and Lake Michigan.

    The FBI raids were coming for some time. They had been staging myriad of FBI vehicles out of the West Lafayette Indiana State Police post near me.

16. straightarrow Says:
    March 29th, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    Wait for it Matthew, but lube up.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges Your Location:

Categories

• ATF (769)
• Death Match (10)
• Eminent Domain (225)
• In the bag (9)
• Notes to Junior (546)
• Poker (74)
• Recipes (142)
• Shotgun Noob (11)
• The Airing of Grievances (19)
• uncategorized (47,725)

Archives

Select Month August 2023 June 2022 March 2022 December 2021 August 2021 February 2021 November 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 October 1971