# Heller response in DC gun ban case at SCOTUS



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

If you're following the second ammendment case at the SC, here is a link to Heller's response:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategori ... guns-case/

It's great reading even if you have no idea what's going on.

I think it is another week or two before amici briefs are due. Argument is scheduled for March 18th.

M.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Mark

Thanks for posting this. It was a very interesting read.

Bob


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

I get a kick out of the line in reference to handguns....."and the potential for rampant use by criminals."

This, in the crime capital city of our nation.   

D.C. is the PRIME example of taking guns away from the citizen leading to MORE crime.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I also thought that was an interesting statement. The section that got me thinking was where it got into the meaning of "bear" and "keep" IMO he (they) make a pretty solid arguement.

It always amazes me that the "framers" of the Constitution had this kind of insight.

Bob


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks MRN. The second amendment has been relatively safe the past few years, but no matter who wins the next election I fear it will face some very threatening back door attacks. I am at an age that these things will not affect me that much, but for my children, grandchildren, and the young fellows on this site we all need to be vigilant. At times it's hard for us to imagine that there are people who see us as enemies of a civil society. They are out there. Some want to be president, and many are in congress already.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

The NRA brief:

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/nra_amicus_heller.pdf


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

All sorts of Amici are piling in now:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategori ... guns-case/

They are due Monday, so it'll be interesting to see how many are filed. Can't imagine reading them all.....

M.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategori ... guns-case/

I have read many of these. This list in support of the respondent is pretty impressive.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/ ... ch08.shtml

Scroll down when you access the link above for full information.

Tuesday, March 18
District of Columbia v. Heller, Docket No. 07-290
Questions Presented

THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS - D.C. CODE §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), AND 7-2507.02 - VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY STATE-REGULATED MILITIA, BUT WHO WISH TO KEEP HANDGUNS AND OTHER FIREARMS FOR PRIVATE USE IN THEIR HOMES? CERT. GRANTED 11/20/2007

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 
Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Gun opponents, supporters demonstrate as Supreme Court hears major Second Amendment case *

Mark Sherman, Associated Press
Published Tuesday, March 18, 2008
WASHINGTON - Advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside the Supreme Court Tuesday while inside, justices heard arguments over the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms."

Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorist buy guns."

Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."

A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.

The high court's first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District of Columbia's ban on ownership of handguns.

Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district's 32-year-old ban on handgun ownership.

"We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe," Jenkins said.

Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national spokewoman for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning handguns in Washington "is denying individuals the right to defend themselves."

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment in the 216 years since its ratification. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the District's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's official position at the court.

The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.

The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.

The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Audio of the arguments at SCOTUS

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

Interesting stuff

Bob


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Listened to the arguements today. Some of the questions from the Justices are tough to read. Are they asking looking for a reason to support or oppose the law.

I found it interesting that they talked in length about what is reasonalbe. I know how I want the court to vote on this, but I would not begin to venture a guess as to the outcome!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Supreme Court Majority Appears To Back Gun Rights*

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 18, 2008; 2:27 PM

A majority of the Supreme Court today seemed to clearly indicate that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to possess a firearm and several justices appeared skeptical about whether the District of Columbia's handgun ban could be considered a reasonable restriction on that right.

Two justices cleanly framed the issue confronting them after about 90 minutes of intense arguments that took a trip back to the English Bill of Rights and the founding of a new nation on this continent.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted the number of people killed by handguns and asked if it was unreasonable for a "city with a very high crime rate to say 'no handguns here.' "

From the other side, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked: "What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?''

The justices peppered lawyer Walter Dellinger, who represented the District, about whether the law provided any adequate measure for residents to own and use a firearm for self-defense.

"Is there anything to show the District considered self-defense?" asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Dellinger said laws that allowed residents to own rifles and shotguns were an adequate provision.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often seen as the deciding vote on the divided court, immediately made it clear he did not accept the District's arguments -- and the views of a vast majority of federal appeals courts -- that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to gun possession in furtherance of military purpose.

The amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Kennedy said he thought the much-debated first clause was simply "reaffirming" the importance of the Constitution's militia clause and that it clearly stated "there is a right to bear arms'' that is separate.

But a finding of an individual right means the court must decide what kind of restrictions would be proper for legislation to impose and under what standard a court should judge them.

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement told the justices that too strict a standard would imperil the federal government's efforts to restrict machine guns or "plastic" guns meant to avoid metal detector screening.

The right to bear arms, Clement argued, "always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.''

Alan Gura, representing those challenging the District law, said he agreed that the "government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use," but he said handguns clearly are not included in such a restriction.

The District, shortly after receiving home rule, passed the gun law in 1976, essentially banning private handgun ownership and requiring that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the law unconstitutional last year, becoming the first appeals court to overturn a gun-control law because of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court's last examination of the amendment was in 1939, when it ruled in U.S. v. Miller that a sawed-off shotgun transported across state lines by a bootlegger was not what the amendment's authors had in mind when they were protecting arms needed for military service.

But several justices seemed to suggest that decision was not binding on the current court. Roberts said during his 2005 confirmation hearings that Miller left the Second Amendment "very much an open issue.'' Kennedy during arguments today called it "deficient."

The court could rule in District of Columbia v. Heller at any point before its adjournment in late June.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

*Justices Appear Skeptical Of D.C.'s Handgun Ban*

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 19, 2008; A01

A majority of the Supreme Court indicated a readiness yesterday to settle decades of constitutional debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment by declaring that it provides an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.

Such a finding could doom the District of Columbia's ban on private handgun possession, the country's toughest gun-control law, and significantly change the tone and direction of the nation's political battles over gun control.

During oral arguments that drew spectators who had waited for days to be in the courtroom, there was far more skepticism among the justices about the constitutionality of the District's ban on private handgun possession than defense of it.

Justices balanced the commands of a Constitution written more than 200 years ago with the modern-day questions presented by a gun ban that, it was argued, either prevents the law-abiding from a means of self-protection or keeps more guns off the streets of the nation's capital.

The court seemed swept up in the historic nature of its endeavor, examining a part of the Constitution that most believe has never been clearly defined. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. encouraged the lawyers to keep talking well beyond the scheduled 75 minutes.

For all the references to Lord Blackstone and the English Bill of Rights and the Framers' intent, Roberts was succinct in describing how he might view the District's arguments that its gun law is reasonable.

"What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?" he asked Washington lawyer Walter E. Dellinger III, who represented the city.

The clauses of the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- have long vexed constitutional scholars. The Supreme Court's last major ruling on the subject, in 1939, stressed the militia-related aspects of the provision.

Roberts quickly signaled his disagreement. "If it is limited to state militias, why would they say 'the right of the people'?" he asked.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the deciding vote on the divided court, was next. "In my view," he said, "there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."

Kennedy expressed, at least three times during the argument, his disbelief that the Framers had not been also concerned about the ability of "the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that."

Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. also lent support to the individual interpretation. Justice Clarence Thomas was silent during the arguments, as is his custom, but has previously expressed such a view.

From the District's point of view, deciding there is an individual right would be answering only half the question. Dellinger argued that it is reasonable for the city to ban the "uniquely dangerous" handgun, which "can be taken into schools, into buses, into government office buildings, and that is the particular danger it poses in a densely populated urban area."

The D.C. law, passed in 1976 shortly after residents received the right to govern themselves, also requires that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock.

Those challenging the law disagree with the District's contention that it provides residents with access to a firearm for self-defense purposes. Several justices agreed.

"How could the District code provision survive under any standard of review where they totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that's most commonly used for self-defense?" Alito asked.

The more liberal justices were most sympathetic to the city. Justice John Paul Stevens repeatedly said that only two states at the time of the framing of the Constitution had individual-right guarantees, and most mentioned the need for guns to provide a "common defense."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that even Lord Blackstone had said gun rights were subject to law and, thus, to restrictions. Justice Stephen G. Breyer was the most aggressive in making the case that local governments may have leeway in restricting gun ownership, based on their own circumstances.

"Is it unreasonable for a city with that high crime rate to say, 'no guns here?' " Breyer asked Alan Gura, the Alexandria-based attorney for security guard Dick Anthony Heller's suit against the city. Before Gura could answer, Scalia interjected, "You want to say yes."

While Gura said it is unreasonable, he conceded that governments could ban ownership of some weapons. Machine guns could be one category, he said, and "plastic" handguns manufactured to escape detection. He said that certain individuals, such as felons, could be banned from gun ownership, and agreed that some licensing of gun ownership would pass constitutional muster.

He hesitated on a question from Stevens: "How about a state university wants to ban students having arms in the dormitory?" "It's something that might be doable, but again, that's so far from what we have here," Gura finally answered. "We have here a ban on all guns, for all people, in all homes, at all times in the nation's capital."

One of the most intriguing aspects of the case has been the position of the Bush administration. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief urged the court to accept the individual-rights view, but he also said the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit striking down the city's law was too broad.

It held that since handguns can be defined as "arms" under the Second Amendment, they cannot be banned. Clement said such "strict scrutiny" could undermine a host of federal gun-control legislation, including restrictions on machine guns.

His suggestion that the case be sent back to lower courts for more work enraged gun rights advocates, who felt betrayed, and set off a split in the Bush administration when Vice President Cheney joined a brief rebutting the government's position.

Clement did not back down yesterday. He said it would make a "world of difference" to the viability of federal gun control if government restrictions on gun ownership did not have to meet the strictest constitutional standards.

Roberts said finding the standard by which to review all government gun regulations may not be necessary in deciding the constitutionality of the District's law.

Clement said any ruling narrower than that of the appeals court would be welcome.

The case is District of *Columbia v. Heller* , and will be decided before the court adjourns in late June.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Supreme Court expected to rule on Exxon Valdez, gun rights cases this week*

Mark Sherman/The Associated Press

Published Sunday, June 15, 2008

Print story 
E-mail story 
Comments WASHINGTON -- One momentous case down, another equally historic decision to go.

The Supreme Court returns to the bench Monday with 17 cases still unresolved, including its first-ever comprehensive look at the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

The guns case - including Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns - is widely expected to be a victory for supporters of gun rights. Top officials of a national gun control organization said this week that they expect the handgun ban to be struck down, but they are hopeful other gun regulations will survive.

Last week, the court delivered the biggest opinion of the term to date with its ruling, sharply contested by the dissenting justices, that guarantees some constitutional rights to foreign terrorism detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 5-4 decision, which Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for his four more liberal colleagues, was the first case this term that broke along ideological lines.

The conservative-liberal split was seen frequently last term, including in cases that limited abortion rights, reined in voluntary school desegregation plans, made it harder to sue for pay discrimination and prodded the Bush administration to combat global warming by regulating tailpipe emissions. Kennedy was the only justice in the majority in all those cases, siding with conservatives in all but the global-warming dispute.

It's hardly unusual that the cases that take until late spring to resolve are the most contentious and most likely to produce narrow majorities.

The dispute over gun rights poses several important questions. Although the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, the court has never definitively said what it means to have a right to keep and bear arms. The justices also could indicate whether, even with a strong statement in support of gun rights, Washington's handgun ban and other gun control laws can be upheld.

Officials at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said recently that they expect Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban to fall but believe that background checks, limits on large-volume gun sales and prohibitions on certain categories of weapons can survive.

In addition to the guns case, the justices are still weighing whether Exxon Mobil Corp. has to pay a $2.5 billion punitive damages judgment over the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska in 1989 and whether people convicted of raping children may be executed.

Exxon has been fighting an Alaska jury's verdict for 14 years, contending that the $3.5 billion it already has spent following the worst oil spill in U.S. history is enough. The jury initially awarded $5 billion to 33,000 commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, landowners, businesses and local governments, but a federal appeals court cut the verdict in half.

Some justices appeared, based on their comments when the case was argued in February, to favor cutting the judgment further. Justice Samuel Alito is sitting out the case because he owns $100,000 to $250,000 in Exxon stock.

Also awaiting a decision is the case of a man sentenced to death in Louisiana after he was convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter. Only five states - Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas are the others - allow executions for the rape of a child, but only Louisiana has imposed death sentences on people convicted of the crime.

The Supreme Court banned executions for rape in 1977 in a case in which the victim was an adult woman. The last executions for rape or any other crime that did not include a victim's death were in 1964.

Retirements typically are announced at the end of the term, although it would be a huge surprise if anyone decided to retire this year with a presidential election looming and little prospect of a nominee being confirmed before then.

Five justices, though, will be at least 70 by the time the court reconvenes in October. Justice John Paul Stevens is 88, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75, Justice Antonin Scalia is 72, Kennedy will turn 72 in July and Justice Stephen Breyer will celebrate his 70th birthday in August.

___


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

The decision should come out 9:00 am central tomorrow.

The Scotusblog site does live blogging - probably the fastest place to get the news. Then folks will be disecting it for years.

M.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Here is the link

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District's firearms regulations - which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock - violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Thanks, Bob
5 to 4 is close. This is the main reson not to vote for Obama.
I do NOT want him appointing Judges :eyeroll: :******:


----------



## Ihuntnfish (Sep 13, 2005)

I don't vote by looking at just one issue but when

"The justices split along conservative-liberal lines in the ruling, one of the most important of the court's current term, in deciding a legal battle over gun rights in America. The ruling came on the last day of the court's 2007-08 term." Reuters

5-4 is to close it is something I take into account when voting.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Many people scoff about a presidential election affecting their second amendment rights. All you have to do is listen to Obama and you should understand his policies. In one speech I listened to he said he would rescind concealed carry in all states. Does that tell you where the man stands.

I think everyone understands that, but the problem is they think he will benefit them financially or in some other manor. If you think it is important for your children to hunt, or have the right to defend themselves you better take this next election very serious. A five to four decision isn't good. It should have been 9 to 0 for the constitution.

I think congress needs to grow a set and put these judges in their place. Their job is to correctly interpret the constitution, not legislate from the bench.

I am not a single issue voter myself, but you better ask yourself what the second amendment is worth to you when you do vote this fall. I'll give up a lot before I give up my freedom.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

John McCain issued the following statement:

Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense. 
Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Barack Obama had a different view:

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country. 
As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> common-sense, effective safety measures


Who's common sense will be the measure? That is very dangerous when you violate the constitution under the guise of common sense. It's deception at it's finest.



> Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations


Justice Scalia seldom interprets the constitution. He in his arrogance thinks it is his right to legislate from the bench.



> As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen.


His previous statements belie his true intent. No lie will suck me in after the first statements. Sorry, the truth is not in this man.



> We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole


What loophole does he speak of? As I understand the liberal definition of loophole it is you going to a gun show and selling a privately owned firearm. Have you seen people walking around gun shows with a for sale sign on a rifle or shotgun? I have, and as I understand it that's the loophole they want to close. To date they have not been able to involve the FBI or the BATF with private sales of firearms. Some liberals propose that if John Doe comes to your house to purchase your old side by side 12 gauge you must call BATF or your going to wear handcuffs. You might wear handcuffs for trying to sell your firearm on this site.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> The justices split along conservative-liberal lines in the ruling


The only lines I see where they was a split was the proper interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Party lines did not and should not have anything to with any SCOTUS decision. Dissenting votes were cast by two justices appointed by a Republican President and two appointed by a Democrat President.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I perhaps shouldn't be so hard on a judge that voted the way I want, but even though he upheld the second amendment Scalia was throwing some personal opinion into his decision. The sad thing is conservative or liberal many of these judges are taking liberties with the constitution. It's troubling. 
Two judges that voted against the second amendment I believe were apponted by a republican. If McCain takes the next election we will have to watch him closely. He may be republican, but he is not conservative. The two are not interchangable. 
I suppose I could put some effort into it, but offhand does anyone remember who appointed the five judges who voted to uphold the second amendment? Perhaps just a curiosity, but I would like evidence not just a feeling for the performance of conservative vs. liberal judges. Voting against I think was two republican appointed, and two democrat appointed.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

This was NOT a major win at ALL.

I was expected a 7-2 decision, not a 5-4 win. This spells long term troubles being so close. Now the antis will be redoubling their efforts to sue since they know the court is closely divided. One of those, may have won the battle but loose the war type things with todays decision.


----------



## Ihuntnfish (Sep 13, 2005)

CWO
There may have been 2 appointees by a republican (Stevens and Sauter) that voted against it but there were 5 appointees by a republican that voted for it. If you don't think that there are conservative and liberal leanings of judges you need to take off your rose colored glasses and step into reality. :eyeroll: In a perfect world would there be no leanings, yes, but that is not the world we live in.

Here is the list plainsman of who appointed who

Roberts GW Bush
Stevens Ford
Scalia Reagan
Kennedy Reagan
Souter GHW Bush
Thomas GHW Bush
Ginsburg Clinton
Breyer Clinton
Alito GW Bush


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ihuntnfish said:


> CWO
> There may have been 2 appointees by a republican (Stevens and Sauter) that voted against it but there were 5 appointees by a republican that voted for it. If you don't think that there are conservative and liberal leanings of judges you need to take off your rose colored glasses and step into reality. :eyeroll: In a perfect world would there be no leanings, yes, but that is not the world we live in.
> 
> Here is the list plainsman of who appointed who
> ...


So it would be Roberts - appointed by GW Bush = for us
Stevens - appointed by Ford = against us
Scalia - appointed by Reagan = for us
Kennedy appointed by Reagan = for us
Scouter appointed by GHW Bush = against us
Thomas appointed by GHW Bush = for us
Ginsburg appointed by Clinton = against us
Beyer appointed by Clinton = against us
Alito appointed by GW Bush = for us

Republicans appointed 7 with five for us and two against us
Democrat appointed 2 and both against us.

No pattern there?????
71.4% of the republican appointees supported the constitution as written, and 28.6 percent did not.
0% of the democrat appointees supported the constitution as written and 100% did not.

Still some of our liberal friends say it is simply scare tactics to insinuate that democrats do not support the second amendment. Anyone want to make that assertion now. How about the fall election? Are you a sportsman? Who are you voting for?


----------



## Doogie (Feb 23, 2007)

looks like Montana is still in the union, for now


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Nothing wrong with my glasses and the reality of the real world was the Constitution was properly upheld. Since seven of the justices were appointed by Republican Presidents and only two by Democrat Presidents there were no party lines to be drawn. By your reasoning it should have been a 7-2 decision. It wasn't though now was it.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

*Roberts GW Bush * Rep controlled Senate

*Stevens Ford * Dem controlled Senate and a Pres who was not elected to office

*Scalia Reagan * *Kennedy Reagan *Dem Controlled Senate but a leader who got the American people behind him and forced the Dems to approve his choices.

*Souter GHW Bush 
Thomas GHW Bush *Both approved by Dem controlled Senate, Thomas if any of you remember had a submarine attempt thrown at him so that the Dems could find a reason not to approve a black judge. Lots of racial undercurrent surrounding him. Souter was by even todays standards left of center on his ruling and not a Constitutional scholar. He was though somebody the Dems agreed to allow to be appointed.

*Ginsburg Clinton * One of the biggest mistakes the Rep Minority leader ever made in not filibustering her appointment. Lott in an attempt to get other legislation passed rolled over.

*Breyer Clinton * See above
*Alito GW Bush* Rep controlled Senate.

So boys and girls, we have a solid ruling today on the issue of the 2nd Amendment as a result of two people in reality. GW, and Ronald Reagan. We got a bit of help from GHWB but only after they brought forward a minority to stem the Dems.

I think some of you would want to take the time to do a bit of research in regards to the appointments of all these judges and the actions surrounding them. You will find that this issue is very much a real concern for all of us today in regards to who would be appointing Judaical nominees. Obama will roll over to the left fringe and we may see someone equal to or worse than Ginsburg. McCain would more likely be pushing forward people in the mindset and ruling history of Scalia, even though Plainsmen sees him as legislating from the bench. I think history will show he is much more of a struck constitutional supporter than you may realize.

Something I have always marveled at is ruling of the SCOTUS. Even when emotionally I disagree with them, I have to give kudos to those who forum an opinion based on the Constitution as it was written and with the intent and meaning of the words based on what they meant at the time and not what we think of the words meaning today!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thank you Ron for bringing a much clearer picture. That is extremely helpful. 
As sportsmen who want to see our grandchildren hunting we need to pay attention to who supports what. Everyone should support the constitution, but sadly that isn't true. 
I was tougher on Scalia than I should have been, and I shouldn't dump on a guy that supports us. I like when he makes the right decision, but then he adds things like these rights are not absolute which sort of takes away from the impact and gives hopes to the gun ban people. Statements like that keep the debate alive and we are not able to put this behind us. Of course I suppose the reality is we will always fight those who would like to disarm the American people. 
My statement that he legislated from the bench was incorrect. His statement that the second amendment is not absolute I disagree with and what I should have said is that statement encourages legislation to infringe on what I consider an absolute right. Big difference, and thanks for your perspective Ron. It's like a guy handing you a piece of pie, but you seen him drool into it. 
People should keep this in mind: anyone willing to violate any portion of the constitution will have no qualms about violating any other portion of the constitution. We have survived this long with the constitution and the old cliché "if it aint broke don't fix it" fits the constitution well.


----------



## Ihuntnfish (Sep 13, 2005)

CWO

If you don't think there are conservative and liberal leanings to judges that have links to republican or democrat party lines. Then well I don't know what to say to you. I can only suggest a few political science classes at one of your local institues of higher learning. 
Dats Dem dare darn places some people by golly call colleuges or some tin like dat.

If you need to get a new pair of glasses that don't have that rose color let me know I know a good eye doc.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Ihuntnfish, first I never said there were not judges that legislate from the bench. Second, we are talking about SCOTUS and their decision handing down yesterday concerning the second amendment, not federal and local judges through out the land. No need to try and make this personal.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Party lines did not and should not have anything to with any SCOTUS decision.


This statement could be true if there was 5-4 representation, with both sides voting both ways or 1 of the 2 voting the other way. Unfortunatley 0% of the democrat appointees supported the constitution as written and 100% did not. With 2 swing votes from the Rep's it is really only showing that the Republicans were the one not voting along their party lines!
We expected both Dem's not to support it, and that's the way they voted!

If you said "Party lines should not have anything to do with any SCOTUS decision." I would agree with you 100%!


----------

