Old Salt Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 I predict that no great ripples will be made. Especially in an electon year. I know Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life but politics is politics.I predict that nothing will change. They will rule that the 2A includes individual rights but they will also rule that practical limitations are allowed. That's where there could be trouble. Whose definition of "practical" do you use? The city of Washington thinks their handgun ban is "practical". They'd have to define the term to avoid confusion and more lawsuits. Even though they're deciding a Washington, DC case, I don't think they'd leave it that far up in the air. If they define "reasonable" or "practical", they'd probably leave the limitation on fully automatic weapons and weapons that have no practical purpose in private hands (assault rifles{?}, hand-held missiles, tanks, etc.). Quote Been wrong before, could be wrong now, will probably be wrong again. Don't take yourself so dang seriously. ;)
Moderators IWS Posted March 19, 2008 Moderators Posted March 19, 2008 That's where there could be trouble. Whose definition of "practical" do you use? The city of Washington thinks their handgun ban is "practical". They'd have to define the term to avoid confusion and more lawsuits. Even though they're deciding a Washington' date=' DC case, I don't think they'd leave it that far up in the air. If they define "reasonable" or "practical", they'd probably leave the limitation on fully automatic weapons and weapons that have no [i']practical [/i]purpose in private hands (assault rifles{?}, hand-held missiles, tanks, etc.). I wasn't saying that "practical" would be the wording that they would use. I was just saying that I wouldn't plan on much changing from this case. Quote One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence.? ~ Thomas Sowell
Old Salt Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 I wasn't saying that "practical" would be the wording that they would use. I was just saying that I wouldn't plan on much changing from this case. I understood what you were saying and I agree with you. One thing about politics, though. If it's June when the ruling is announced, that's a long time before the elections. Lots of time for the spin meisters to do their work. Quote Been wrong before, could be wrong now, will probably be wrong again. Don't take yourself so dang seriously. ;)
Moderators IWS Posted March 19, 2008 Moderators Posted March 19, 2008 I understood what you were saying and I agree with you. One thing about politics, though. If it's June when the ruling is announced, that's a long time before the elections. Lots of time for the spin meisters to do their work. That's another reason that I don't forsee much to come of this. If nothing changes, not much to spin. Quote One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence.? ~ Thomas Sowell
snafu Posted March 28, 2008 Author Posted March 28, 2008 McClatchy Washington Bureau | 03/18/2008 | Supreme Court justices critical of D.C. gun ban "Here you've got local legislation in response to local needs, and this is local legislation in the seat of the government," attorney and Duke Law School professor Walter Dellinger argued on behalf of the District of Columbia. Quote *NEVER FORGOTTEN*
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.