Comments on: A Glint of Hope

By: jacob

jacob — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:25:09 +0000

I figured the gun control libtards would come out of the woodwork to defend the right of the state to trample the 2nd amendment. Alas, as Jack put it it, they have nothing.

By: G. Stone

G. Stone — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:14:15 +0000

Jack hits the nail on the head.

Libs are forever telling us protection of lives and property is the responsibility of the police ( government )
How many times have you heard a lefty tell you, just call the police ? Too many to count.

The decisions cited keep citizens from holding Government(s) responsible in civil court for failure to “protect ” them from harm. Government is insulated from lawsuits brought against them by victims, families of victims or victims rights groups.

In DC, New York, Chicago and San Franscisco to name but a few , local governments have denied citizens the right to defend themselves by imposing draconian gun control laws at the same time holding themselves harmless.

By: ACTivist

ACTivist — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:46:00 +0000

We can’t forget the “friends” from congress coming on-board on behalf of gun rights. They already smelled blood in the water and figured to look good on the “winning” side. I don’t think that with all the friends-of briefs that the justices are receiving, that they will do something ignorant. I do believe that they will narrow focus enough to stipulate the right of self-defense; especially in the home. As far as stipulating the unalienable right to own firearms and defend ourselves, they will stop just short of this. That, in turn, will leave plenty of room for future regulations. I just don’t think that they’re ready to get it yet, but, hey! I’ve been wrong before.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:28:38 +0000

It was the DC Superior Court that ruled, in Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981) (en banc), “… a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has made a similar ruling, in DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT., 489 U.S. 189 (1989): “A State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.”

So high crime rates can hardly be used as an excuse to disarm law-abiding citizens.

By: Brian Withnell

Brian Withnell — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:04:27 +0000

This may be one of those times where the court works hard to issue a 9-0 ruling. At least we can hope they do. It may be that a couple of the justices may not want to side with the majority, but if they can be persuaded this is about a fundamental right, they may go alone with the majority.
The only problem I see with that, is in order to get unanimous decisions, they usually compromise on the content. That is presupposing the court acts sensibly.
What I find amazing, is that some of the judges apparently support gun control to the tune of the DC ban. I also find it amazing that the judges that would seem to support a gun ban, would cite high crime rates and the presence of police as reasons for not allowing handguns for self-defense. High crime rates and the fact that there are police is the very reason people should *want* handguns for self-defense. There are police, and they do not prevent crimes from occurring — which means that if a person is going to be secure in their person, they need to have the tools of self-defense. It is patent that the police cannot protect them — they cannot prevent high crime rates.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:54:46 +0000

They have nothing, Jacob.

By: G. Stone

G. Stone — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:45:28 +0000

If Kennedy gets a jolt of common sense, we might get to 6. A 6 to 3 Decision is about as good as we can expect to get.

I for one will add the common sense prayer:

Please God allow for Wisdom, common sense and rational thought to pulse through the minds of all 9 supremes while deciding this the most important of cases. Afterwards, please guide them to a reconcilation with Diana Ross for at least 2 shows a night for 6 weeks at Ceasars Palace. Right On and Amen.

By: Joe Budzinski

Joe Budzinski — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:42:03 +0000

If that quote is indicative of Justice Kennedy’s leanings it is definitely a cause for hope. Good post.

By: Loudoun Conservative

Loudoun Conservative — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:47:03 +0000

You can read the oral arguments in Heller here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf
They are very educational.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:43:30 +0000

Considering the tortured illogic used in Hellering v. Davis to uphold Social Security (in the face of a court-stacking threat), the Roe v. Wade decision, the Kelo decision, and the McConnell v FEC decision on McCain-Feingold, we can only trust that the S.C. will do what it damn well wants and make up some B.S. to justify it.