during the founding of our constitution people may have been called assassins for HIDING a pistol but it was common, and fairly expected, for them to CARRY a pistol. so would people stop fighting the 2nd amendment if we got rid of concealed carry and made it legal nationally to ...
03-18-2008, 11:32 AM
| #21 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster  Realist 
| during the founding of our constitution people may have been called assassins for HIDING a pistol but it was common, and fairly expected, for them to CARRY a pistol. so would people stop fighting the 2nd amendment if we got rid of concealed carry and made it legal nationally to open carry? | ||||
     |
|
03-18-2008, 01:06 PM
| #22 | ||||
| Banned  Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| two good articles motivez...it helps some of looking at those I'd describe as right-of-center on guns (most americans want MORE gun control, even I don't) People "lolz guncite told me it's such an easy read, and since i've been reading it the way they told me to my whole life, it has to be right! Only an idiot can get it wrong" Joe Cool doesn't really come here much if at all, but he was a poster boy for that kind of "argument" RESPECTED scholars on both sides realize there are good arguments presented, that some 9 people can't just come in and solve decades of original historical research and analysis I'm most interested if the opinion will go into the specifics of that argument, that's my major concern, some jackass like Alito or Scalia going "oh, I know what this all means, here let me tell you" like some NRA guy really bored at a bus station Historians like me will be debating new evidence that will come out, as it always does, every decade or so, and all we need is some moron going 'DIDN'T YOU READ WHAT SCALIA SAID, WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO A TRUCKLOAD OF HANDGUNS ANYWHERE ANYTIME, THATS WHAT THE ALL THE FOUNDERS WANTED, WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT THIS STUPID SHIT?" I already get enough of that now, in any historical setting, we don't need justices deciding history...the "liberal court" of the 1960s-somewhat70s...did not go about saying "IF THOMAS JEFFERSON WERE HERE, HE'D PERSONALLY STAMP MY OPINION WITH HIS APPROVAL" no, they said the nation made a natural evolution, and the court was able to put together a right to privacy and so forth...it was an argument based on a broad interpretation of the constitution and where we are today They did not have the arrogance to solely base their opinions on those of James Madison and the majority of constitutional convention members and claim they had finally unlocked the true historical meaning It hasn't mattered as much on issue of grave significance, such as searching a person's car after he's been arrested outside it, because those weren't based on the founding fathers, both sides argued about the meaning of the 4th amendment but the troubles of officer today that weren't present in the 1790s...even though the court moved very much away from personal liberty, I'm much more comfortable because both sides realized they weren't basing their opinions on history as the founding fathers didn't forsee drug stops with PCP on a federal highway with an automobile I fear this court will do such | ||||
| |
|
03-18-2008, 03:21 PM
| #23 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| it looks as though this will annoy both NRA-nuts and Brady-nuts...but most disappointingly, it will annoy historians It looks like the court will say there is a right to own a firearm but that right is restricted and regulated by the government, possibly heavily It's so frustrating because it appears this will all revolve around home defense from criminals, which was COMPLETELY outside the scope of what, especially the urban, founding fathers were worried about... The right had almost completely to do with a fear of a tyrannical government, then some people believed some right to hunt, some even feared their state government being tyrannical...that was about it People living in urban centers during the constitutional convention had virtually no need to stock up on pistols to protect against criminals However, I understand, traditions develop, times change, but that would mean A NEW FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, not twisting the 2nd amendment so Justice Kennedy can find a reason just to have a handgun to defend his house from an angry crowd of minorities... ugh...if this turns out like I think...I will be significantly less interested in the presidential election, as we've seen the current 5 (who show no signs of retiring) are going to re-write history when they are not taking apart the advancement of privacy rights... | ||||
| |
|
03-18-2008, 04:22 PM
| #24 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal  Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim George Bush's legacy will live on for decades. Worst president in modern times. 
| ||||
| |
|
03-18-2008, 05:00 PM
| #25 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| you should see the transcripts I'm reading now...kennedy is pathetic, he repeated himself I think 6x now saying 'WHAT ABOUT INTRUDERS?!?!?' It's so obnoxious and powerful that it comes off as almost racist, he lives near DC and he is terrified of not being able to have a gun to save himself from the black gangs, he'll say or write fucking anything to protect himself Christ... I'm going to do a full writeup later in a seperate thread | ||||
| |
|
03-18-2008, 06:15 PM
| #26 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to strike down D.C. handgun ban - Los Angeles Times
| ||||
| |
|
03-18-2008, 09:00 PM
| #27 | ||||
| Junkie libertarian
| Heller's attorney was an abortion. | ||||
| |
|
03-18-2008, 09:43 PM
| #28 | ||||
| Lurker  Republican Michigan
| I don't understand how the crime rate in D.C. can be so high. I mean hasn't the ban on private possession of handguns been effective? | ||||
| |
|
03-18-2008, 09:49 PM
| #29 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by northhunter Of course not.
| ||||
| |
|
03-18-2008, 10:18 PM
| #30 | ||||
| America Fuck Yea Election Moderator  Republican In Name Only
| Originally Posted by hsmith Not sure if you saw this but they are going with an inexperienced lawyer who has been with the case from the get go:
For Young Area Lawyer, The Supreme Compliment By Paul Duggan Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 18, 2008; B01 Even for a lawyer with decades of experience and a résumé of eminent achievements, an opportunity to help shape constitutional history might never come along. Then there's Alan Gura, 37, Class of '95 at Georgetown University Law Center. For him, the chance has just arrived. When the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments today in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case that could lead to a landmark ruling on the Second Amendment, Gura will address the justices for the first time in his career. He'll ask them to uphold a lower appellate ruling that struck down the District's handgun ban, one of the nation's toughest gun control laws, which was passed in 1976. He'll urge them to interpret the Constitution as guaranteeing people the right to own firearms. To merely call this the biggest case of Gura's relatively short professional life -- well, that wouldn't do it justice. Constitutional scholars everywhere are watching. To oppose him, the city has hired a 66-year-old legal titan who was winning arguments in the Supreme Court when Gura was still studying for the bar exam. Must be nerve-racking. "Not really," Gura said. "It's certainly very exciting to be able to argue not just in front of the Supreme Court, but to argue this case in particular. But at the end of the day, it's an appellate argument, and I've done a lot of those. "It's the practice of law," he said simply. "And I've been practicing law for a while now." Gura, a civil litigation specialist in the two-lawyer firm of Gura & Possessky, was hired to handle the legal fight in 2003 by a social acquaintance, Robert A. Levy, the wealthy retired entrepreneur turned libertarian scholar who is bankrolling the case. Levy, a nonpracticing lawyer, and Clark M. Neily III, a libertarian public-interest lawyer who deals mainly with property rights, had laid the groundwork for the litigation by recruiting a diverse group of plaintiffs: six D.C. residents, all strangers to each other, who want to own pistols. But Levy and Neily needed a lawyer to represent the residents in a lawsuit against the city. "Bob just called me on the phone one day," said Gura, a Los Angeles native who studied government at Cornell University before enrolling at Georgetown. "Bob is not a litigator, and Clark has a job doing something else, so they needed someone to take the reins. "And I just said: 'Sure! Sounds like a great idea!' " Five years later, with the case having gained potentially historic significance, Levy said he has resisted pressure from gun-rights advocates and others who wanted him to replace Gura with a more seasoned lawyer. "There were a lot of people who said, 'There are a lot of superstars who could do this case -- and Alan Gura's not -- and wouldn't you be better served by hiring someone else?' " Levy said. "But Alan Gura knows this case better than anybody in the world." Like Levy, Gura is a libertarian who contends that the government interferes too much with constitutional freedoms. Unlike Levy, who said he has never owned a firearm and doesn't want one, Gura said he keeps a handgun in his Virginia home to protect himself, his wife and their baby son. Although he said he believes passionately in his side's interpretation of the Second Amendment, Gura argues calmly, explaining his case with soft-spoken precision, when supporters of the handgun law pointedly challenge him. In his view, although it is permissible for the government to regulate firearms ownership, the Constitution forbids an outright ban. The lawsuit, which Levy said Gura is handling for "something less than minimum wage," failed in U.S. District Court. But the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the decision last year and declared the ban unconstitutional. The D.C. government has asked the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling. Only Dick A. Heller, 66, a security guard who lives on Capitol Hill, remains a plaintiff. The circuit court ruled that the others did not have legal standing to sue the District over the ban. Gura said he is ready to square off today against the heavyweight hired by the city, Walter E. Dellinger, a former acting U.S. solicitor general who has argued 20 cases before the Supreme Court, winning 13, with two yet to be decided. "There's been a lot of preparation," said Gura, who, like Dellinger, has rehearsed his argument before a mock panel of justices. "I've mooted this case aggressively. I've had five moot courts with excellent practitioners, top people, asking me tough questions. There's no substitute for that. You learn a lot about your case." After graduating from Georgetown and working as a law clerk for a U.S. District Court judge in North Carolina, Gura was a deputy state attorney general in California for three years, handling civil litigation. He said he was often assigned to defend police officers who had been sued for allegedly violating suspects' civil rights. Returning to Washington in the late 1990s, he spent about a year with a big firm, Sidley Austin, and a year as counsel to the Senate subcommittee on criminal justice oversight before starting his firm. He and his partner, Laura Possessky, have offices on K Street downtown and in Alexandria. "I sure appreciate the confidence Bob has shown in me," said Gura, who is aware that some people have urged Levy hire a more accomplished appellate lawyer with a bigger name. Among the suggested replacements, Levy said, were former special prosecutor Kenneth Starr and former U.S. solicitor general Theodore B. Olson. "I've had this case for five years," Gura said. "I won the case in the circuit court. I've written the pleadings. I've made the arguments before. I've devised the strategy. To take nothing away from those other lawyers -- because they're very fine lawyers -- but so what? "It's not their case." Staff writer Robert Barnes contributed to this report. washingtonpost.com | ||||
| |
|
03-18-2008, 10:27 PM
| #31 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by northhunter it is kind of silly considering you go across the river and can outfit a small army
| ||||
| |
|
03-18-2008, 10:29 PM
| #32 | ||||
| America Fuck Yea Election Moderator Republican In Name Only
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim it is still against the law to come across the river with those weapons
| ||||
| |
|
03-19-2008, 09:41 AM
| #33 | ||||
| Give me liberty or give me death!  libertarian Lake Stevens, WA
| Originally Posted by kinggovernor who woulda thought that criminals break the law
 | ||||
| |
|
03-19-2008, 09:53 AM
| #34 | ||||
| Junkie libertarian
| Originally Posted by kinggovernor No it isn't. Driving through DC with a handgun secured is legal.
| ||||
| |
|
03-19-2008, 09:56 AM
| #35 | ||||
| Junkie libertarian
| Originally Posted by kinggovernor I know he was young, but his noobness showed  we will see how it pans out. it will be interested to see the scope of the ruling. i personally don't see it being a big change. but we shall see. they took the case for a reason... | ||||
| |
|
03-19-2008, 10:04 AM
| #36 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
|
| ||||
| |
|
03-19-2008, 11:54 AM
| #37 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by 7960 yeah but I don't think anyone will be happy about the decision. They will say that there is an individual right but that the right can be subject to government regulation. So the pro gun people will be angry and the anti-gun people will be angry as well
| ||||
| |
|
03-19-2008, 12:03 PM
| #38 | ||||
| America Fuck Yea Election Moderator Republican In Name Only
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 that would make me happy, it makes sense. Every "right" is subjected to regulation
| ||||
| |
|
03-19-2008, 12:10 PM
| #39 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 we're all idiots and we recognize that there's no way everyone will be happy with any decision. with their mental horsepower they had to know, too.
| ||||
| |
|
03-19-2008, 12:14 PM
| #40</ |
