Waiting for Heller; Update: We’ll have to wait another day
Rumors and excitement abound as Supreme Court watchers and gun rights advocates await the decision in Heller v. D.C. Could come today, tomorrow, or Monday. There are seven cases left to be announced.
The excellent SCOTUSblog begins liveblogging at 10am Eastern.
Will Justice Scalia author the ruling? Can he keep a majority?
David Hardy at Arms and the Law is watching–and keeping track of many interesting gun and anti-gun developments. Go here and keep scrolling.
My favorite: Baltimore gun grabber Sheila Dixon, crime-fighting crusader, is in a heap of trouble over her own suspected criminal activities.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Guns
TigerHawk
» Barack Obama's first foreign police gaffe?Patterico
» The Newest SenatorsMudville Gazette
» Excerpts from a LifeJustOneMinute
» Susan Rice To The United NationsPower Line
» "Our Friends In Bombay"Belmont Club
» Good enoughNewsBusters.org
» Klein Bashes 'Inanity' of Asking Obama About Process and Old Hillary-Bashing QuotesGateway Pundit
» Change... Obama Continues Boycott of FOX NewsBelmont Club
» Crusader Rabbit
The suspense is killing me.
The handgun ban is all sorts of ridiculous. It doesn’t deter crime. There is no reasonable state interest to banning these weapons so the 2nd Amendment infringement is unacceptable.
Let’s hope the ban gets overturned ASAP.
I share part of a poem I wrote:
I am moved
To remind…THAT
Every tyrant from
The beginning of time
Has ITS eye on
What’s yours and mine.
All tyrants come from
The league of men.
For control of others
The laws they bend.
The only way we can survive
Is to exercise
Our covenant
With any government…
Amendment II
The Right of Arms to Bear.
CS..
The Second Ammendment protects the First….
We must be watchful on this issue>>>>>
Socialistas go down. They must go down hard. Corrupt governments can’t pacify an armed populace.
What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” don’t they understand?
First opinion of the day just came down. SCOTUS Blog:
The part that’s inconveniently written into the Constitution.
The court ruled that the death penalty for child rapists is unconstitutional unless death was intended.
I think it’s interesting that a good number of those pwople for gun control live in gated communities and/or have armed guards.
Ok for them, but not us, huh?
When guns are banned, the only people who have guns are the criminals because the cops come to the houses of those who have registered weapons and confiscate them. Ergo the law abiding citizenry can no longer protect themselves against the thugs who have the guns now.
DC has had multiple killings this month and there isn’t supposed to be guns in the city. Hmmh, why do you think people are still being killed by guns in a city where guns are banned. It’s very interesting isn’t it? But Mayor Fenty is never asked to explain, he just puts up a checkpoint Charlie in an area where there are a lot of violent activities and questions those who want to go into the neighborhood.
Here’s hoping it will be overturned.
Death penalty for child rape (if rape doesn’t end in death) ruled unconstitutional. 5-4. Guess who the 5 are.
Get ‘er done.
Provided on how they rule is how I will be disbursing our stimulus check that finally arrived this week. I am home today watching Fox News and they just announced the child rapist ruling of not being able to kill them. Another majority opinion written by the POS Kennedy. I don’t have a very good feeling about the Kelo decision after hearing this one.
Child rapists will NOT get the death penalty. Such a compassionate court.
I must agree with Rusty … rare as that may be …
Guns don’t kill people … people kill people …
All the gun ban does is ensure the only people with guns (and illegal guns at that) are the criminals …
Heller not being decided today.
SCOTUS blog:
This Giles case is interesting too but still hoping for good news on Heller.
Amerpun, it just came up on the blog. I guess it will have to wait until another day. But it was interesting watching that blog.
The final opinion for the day:
However, SCOTUS blog:
Heller ruling will be tomorrow for sure. So says Chief Justice.
Heller will be announced tomorrow morning.
UGH - no stretch there. Never has there ever been a time where 5 people could screw up so much. I am sure it was not what our founding fathers intended.
I would love to see the SCOTUS rule against gun rights to show how far they are from reason. This hopefully would mobilize the fence sitters into supporting candidates that would vote for conservative justices such as,Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito!
In a perverse way, I was actually hoping for a ridiculous liberal (repetitive, I know), Constitution- defying decision in Heller. I doubt few issues could have woken up the American public to the danger from an Obama-stacked SCOTUS than a rejection of the 2nd amendment.
Damn! The suspense is killing me. *sigh*
Gosh. Now who could those justices have been? I wonder.
Let’s see so far we have the SCOTUS deciding that:
Terroists get rights
Child Rapists have the right to live
Yep I would be willing to bet that the next thing we will see is that the average law abiding citizen will be stripped of their 2nd ammendment rights in tomorrow’s expected decision.
Well they include a couple McCain is proud of supporting.
Fixed that for ya.
From Scotusblog:
I think Louisiana had it right. Whats more cruel and inhumane than raping a child?
Freakin’ putzes!!
Correction to my earlier post should have stated I don’t have a good feeling about the Heller decision. I am still none too happy about the re-write of “Eminent Domain” portion of the 5th Amendment by the Supremes and I am sure neither are the founding fathers.
Fixed it for ya Chap!
Why do they keep putting it off?
The second I deposited my stimulus check into my account I went off to pick up a new Springfield Armory XD-9 sub-compact semi-auto pistol. I’m applying for a concealed carry permit next month.
If any of you are inactive NRA members or ever thought of joining, now is the time to act. The NRA will have a big part to play in alerting Americans to the danger Obama represents to our constitutional rights this fall.
.
Should not try to talk to talk on the phone and type at the same time.
Refixed.
Terrig,
So there is not one innocent person in Guantanamo? Surely you are not that naive/stupid?
Many, after years of stewing in there have already been released because the government could not show any ties to terror.
Of course, with all the handwringing and hyperbole about that case one would think that the SCOTUS personally flew down there unlocked all the cells, put a one-way ticket to Afghanistan in their one hand and a IED in the other and gave them a pat on the back.
TERROR SUSPECTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES GET RIGHTS.
Since when do our enemies get protection under our constitution. Oh, 5 people decided it is so.
First…our suspected enemies. Second…I suppose they get rights right about the time that the United States captures and detains them.
Chap, how dare you call me stupid or naive. I’ve seen more things than you will ever see in your lifetime on a battlefield. Perhaps if you spent some time there you would get it but I know you have a b-i-l going so you’re virtually there.
If you believe that they’re all innocent, more power to you. However, the fact they spent time in Gitmo has turned them all into evil people that they were not before. I guess you missed the stories of the ones who have been let out and have been recaptured or have become suicide bombers killing those who serve like my husband and your b-i-l. Of course these killers were innocent and that mean old Bush made them killers so it’s not really their fault is it? Please, get a grip. I’m sure you believe the old story that was going around that the reason OBL hates Americans is because his proposal of marriage was rejected by an American girl.
Soap, all these liberals really care about is bucking the system. It makes them feel good to give those who would slit their throats “rights’.
No, no. As you can see I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with respect to naivety and or stupidity.
That’s super. Did you know that many of those terror suspects were captured far away from a battlefield?
That is not what I said at all, but that is the type of hyperbole that your side is forced to resort to.
Ahh…so we capture whomever, and on the chance that they might be pissed for locking them up for many years, we better keep em in, guilty or not. That is awesome.
Are you referring to the examples that Scalia cited in his dissent? Because the numbers he cited were grossly exaggerated. Look here.
Apparently, giving an interview for a documentary is considered “returning to the battlefield.” I’m not saying that there haven’t been examples of those released showing up in battles later. But at least work from an accurate numbers.
Does having to prove a terror suspects guilt make it more dangerous for our soldiers? Probably. There are surely cases where the US has released someone who has gone on to try to kill our boys and gals. On the same token, having a high burden of proof in criminal trials undoubtedly makes our streets less safe. Murderers get off all the time because the state cannot quite meet that threshold of proof. It is a price we pay to preserve our country’s ideals.
I will give you “our suspected enemies” for the sake of argument. Where in the Constitution does it give forign persons rights? “You suppose” does not count.
Foreign persons are given constitutional rights when they are under US sovereignty. That is undisputed. The trickier issue is that the government tried to claim that Guantanamo is not under the sovereignty of the US, but the Supreme Court decided that it was in all practical senses.
But whatever, I have the feeling I am not going to change a whole lot of minds.
Really? How so?
As a total aside. Holy crap. Seriously, how did you remember that. I can’t recall ever mentioning that here. Obviously I did, but it must have been ages ago.
Wow. He’s headed back in August, btw.
Haha, good work, Chap!! Bravo!
My favorite part of the Gitmo decision was McCain calling it the worst decision ever. The man wants to close Gitmo…which would in turn give accused terrorists (although most in Gitmo are not related to terror at all) habeus corpus anyways. McCain isn’t a very smart guy.
And good work SCOTUS on the child rape decision. That should have been a no-brainer.
Soap, some Christian you are looking to kill those who haven’t killed another. I’m perfectly happy locking child rapists up forever. But you want something even beyond the outdated notion of “eye for an eye”? Taking a life when no other life was taken? Just like Jesus taught, eh?
Barry, anyone detained in the United States has the right to challenge their detention. This is nothing new. It stretches back to Reconstruction.
The administration argued that Gitmo was on foreign soil, so those rules don’t apply. Since Gitmo is controlled by the US, SCOTUS, correctly, ruled that the rules do apply.
If you take the administration’s logic to the extreme, and say that foreigners don’t have rights, that would allow us to execute any Mexican without a trial. Or to indefinitely detain people in an American embassy.
I do not support the death penalty at all Rusty, but boy….just on a guttural level I’d almost rather give it to a child rapist than a killer. Murder is evil, but raping a child represents a sickness which I think is pretty much unredeemable.
I have a client right now who is dealing with the sexual abuse of his 8 year old daughter and it is just horrible.
On June 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am, terrig said:
Liberals, as usual, are trying to have it both ways.
They tell us that prolonged incarcerations only increase crime rates by turning low-level offenders into hardened criminals who act-out upon release, yet they have no qualms whatsoever in releasing most every detainee in Gitmo under the guise of presumed innocence - despite the fact that many of these so-called innocent have been locked away with the undeniably quilty for quite some time.
If liberals truly believe in their limited incarcerations theory, then why is it unreasonable to extend it to the detainees in Gitmo? Why shouldn’t we collectively qualify them as guilty, to be held for tribunal? I mean isn’t wisest to assume the once so-called innocent are now less innocent and, in the event of their sudden release, more apt to seek revenge against for their stays in Club Git?
Liberals need to be consistent with their dangerous theories.
If we make hardened criminals out of low level offenders by housing them other hardened criminals, then we have made hardened terrorists out the so-called innocent by housing them the known terrorists in Gitmo and should not, must not release them.
Liberals need to realize all the Gitmo detainees must be held for military tribunals. It is the safest thing to do and the smartest.
Nutz!: isn’t [it]wisest
DBN, the “liberal” point with respect to incarceration for low level offenders is not to incarcerate them in the first place, but to offer alternatives to hard time to avoid the criminal from becoming “hardened.”
And guess what…at least with those low level offenders, they were actually found guilty of a crime by a court of law. Unlike those being held at Guantanamo.
Kind of an important distinction, dontcha think?
Non-uniformed enemy combatants detained other than on domestic U.S. soil. Guantanamo Bay is on the Southwest edge of Cuba along the Caribbean Sean.
Saying that SCOTUS decided that the U.S. having a base there makes it not foreign soil is circular logic - “We’re right, because we say we are right.“
SeanSeaDang, another typo. Sorry.
No…they are saying they are right because the US exerted all of the powers over Guantanamo that it would over any other sovereign soil.
It’s actually more a case of the administration using circular logic in saying “It’s not sovereign because we say its not sovereign.”
You’re absolutely right. It IS a no brainer.
They still managed to botch it anyway.
If we’re not going to dispatch these sick freaks, the least we could do is bind them hand and foot, and leave them in the room with the victims’ family for about 10 minutes. what they do is up to them.
I got my check about 1 1/2 months ago and I went out and bought a new XD-40 subcompact. I really like this thing so far.
No life was taken? No life was taken? Brutally raping little boys and girls whose lives have barely begun DOES TAKE THEIR LIVES AWAY imbecile! They will never live the normal life they would have had. The damages done to children at the hands of sick freak perverts are irreversible and while these children spend their lifetimes trying to oust horrible memories from their minds - the sick freaks get 3 squares a day and cable tv for the rest of their days. Which, by the way, cost me the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars to house these animals till they die! I’m all for the .50 cent bullet methodology….much cheaper and justice would be served swiftly and painlessly.
On June 25th, 2008 at 12:09 pm, chapoutier said:
Noooope - but thanx for asking!
To all the gun people,
One interesting aspect of Heller is if the ban is overturned (fingers crossed!) and there is a sharp spike in crime (unlikely, but let’s get hypothetical), then we could end up in the courts again.
Preventing murder is a legitimate state interest and if eliminating the ban is linked to an increase in crime then we have some trouble.
So, it’s especially troubling that the gun ban might be revoked when the city is seeing an uptick in violent crime. People who don’t support the 2nd Amendment are going to link the two when there really isn’t a legitimate connection there.
Just something to watch out for.
Which says everything one need know about you. You could not care less about such antiquated notions as “guilt” or “innocence.”
Surveyor, I’m not going to argue that rape isn’t a life altering experience. So is raping adults. So is armed robbery. So are a lot of things. Viscerally, child rape is worse than all anything else, but I don’t think that’s a distinction that legislatures should be making.
Any bets on whether or not we will see Rusty on Thursday with a six-shooter strapped to each side?
He seems itchin’ for this.
Not only does the DC gun ban need to be declared unconstitutional, but a broad view of an individuals right to keep and bear arms needs to be incorporated. A standard needs to be established, and it needs to be a very permissive one. What other constitutional right varies so greatly from state to state? What other constitutional right requires a citizen to first get written permission from the government before he can exercise it? I can carry my pistol in Virginia legally, but if I cross the river into DC, I’ll be arrested and charged with a FELONY ! That needs to change.
Well I just bet the pedophiles are having a coming out of the woodwork party.
Thanks SC……you suck.
Chap, you said your b-i-l was heading out and you hoped he’d only have to do 12 months instead of the 15 that my husband has to do again. It was when you called me a terrorist because I jokingly said something about obummer and obl.
If you feel those who are terrorists are wonderful you should look up the treatment that Pvts Menchaca and Tucker and Sgt. Maupin received and tell me that you think your b-i-l would receive the great treatment those at Gitmo receive if he was captured. Perhaps you need to do some re-thinking.
BTW don’t insult the men and woman in uniform by calling them boys and gals. They are not children nor should they be mocked by the likes of liberals who won’t serve such as yourself.
Ironically, I hate guns outside of recreational shotgun shooting at my preferred national park in West Virginia. But the Constitution is the Constitution and I don’t see a way to deny the individual right of gun ownership through the text or through legal precedent.
I also hate flag burning, but I stand up for the Constitutionality of that as well.
Ah…okay. I will not apologize for hoping that my brother in law only has to be away from his wife and three daughters for a year. But good memory in any case.
No. I believe I was mocking your stupid use of some form of Obama/Osama.
Again, a superb example of the kind of distortions and hyperbole…well lets just call it a lie…that your side is forced to make about the Supreme Court’s decision.
I think there is more than one woman in uniform, btw. I will assume that’s a typo. And please. You are seriously not going to try to make an issue out of calling our soldiers over there a common colloquialism “boys”. Shall I start to search for the undoubtedly thousands of times Republicans, conservatives, people on this board have done the same? Or many of the patiotic songs from WWI and II about our “boys” going over there? DO I really need to do that to prove how dumb an attack that was?
Have you served? Or is being a wife of one who serves enough? I am just trying to gauge how many degrees of separation still make you a patriot-by-association in the Book Of Terrig.
Chap, I did 12 years so stuff it.
Forgot to ask, how much have you done?
Enemy combatants caught out of uniform should (and legally can under the Geneva Convention) be shot as spies without a trial.
If you are referring to military service, not a one.
Neither have the vast majority of Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Jews, atheists, Michelle Malikin, etc…
But we are grateful to those who do.
And the match point goes to Terrig!
Many of the people we’ve detained are guilty of nothing more than bad intelligence. Afghans tell American intelligence that their personal enemies are spies and off to Gitmo they go.
So what you’re asking for is inhumane and terrorism in its own right.
I’ve linked to it before, but here’s the McClatchy report again.
Sure you are because others volunteer so you don’t have to go.
CC is right on # 70, you’re such a wizbang lawyer, look up the GC.
The same Geneva Conventions that the Bush administration has continually held does not apply to enemy combatants?
Really? Where did I say I am looking to kill anybody? I will go one further. I do not think babies in a womb should be killed. Where did Jesus teach abortion was right? Seems Chap wants child rapists killed. You must have us confused. IDIOT
For the sake of argument, I am going to assume that because I do not agree with the ruling of the SCOTUS I want child rapists dead when they did not kill anybody. How about permanent damage? How much harm must a child suffer before the perp can be declared a beast (non-human)? Suppose the victim kills himself/herself later as a direct result of their assault? How about no more repeat offenders? How about this is the most vile crime imaginable? Why is it you find NO problem killing babies who have done nothing but have a problem with an animal being killed? Why do you protect the criminal but hate the baby? Do not presume to teach me about Jesus. He let on criminal die next to him while He promised one eternal life.
Given the choice, I would chose and innocent baby over a proven animal any day and GOD would certainly back me on it. I would not mind seeing them die but I do not hunt them down and kill them. Try again baby killer.
…that have not signed the GC or abaide by it?
Okay. Granted. Should it then be used to justify shooting a suspected non-uniformed enemy spy on sight?
Can’t have it both ways.
And as a point of clarification, Soap…I do not support the death penalty in any case. But…if it were to be applied to a child rapist, lets just say I am not going to be outside the prison with a picket sign.
Soap, I’ve tried to figure out Rusty and his stance on abortion versus the death penalty but can’t. He doesn’t even want them to be put out to pasture in a Sheriff Joe type program where they wouldn’t be allowed to see their family member either (since the victims can no longer see their family members). I will never understand it. I’m for putting them out to make little rocks from big rocks but he thinks that innocent children are okay to do away with because it’s a “choice”. Child rapists should be put out to pasture too. These people cannot be reformed and to compare armed robbery with rape shows me that he’s never been raped himself which does happen. When he has, he can speak to how it’s just a “life changing” crime but nothing to get too excited over.
As for the other one, there’s nothing more to say.
Soap, before you call me an idiot:
Are those not your words? Does killing one who hasn’t killed another not a giant step past even eye for an eye?
Terri, capital punishment is killing another human being. This is undeniable.
The science isn’t so straightforward when it comes to fetuses. Most scientists to not consider fetuses to be human, therefore I don’t get too worked up over it. If I get someone pregnant, I know I will urge that person not to get an abortion. That’s my choice.
But I’m not about to speak for the millions of people who don’t believe that life begins at conception or implementation.
Too late.
That right there makes you an idiot in my book. Where did I say I am looking to kill anybody. Take it up with Sodomites who didn’t kill anybody. Oh, wait, GOD killed them all. SHEESH
I will repeat:
Chap,
I know pal. Rusty hammered me about wanting to kill people and I was using what you said as he was patting you on the back. I like someone who is against the death penality but has reservations when it concerns animals.
Soap. You of all people should know that everyone is capable of being saved. Even child rapists.
Rusty, need I remind you that you were once a fetus. I know that’s a choice that your mother made to bring you to fruition and that was good but there is no excuse for killing millions of unborn children.
When did I ever say I was for the death penalty? I am not-I am pro-life across the board. I just believe they should not have any contact with their families and should have lives of hard labor. They took a life which should be just as important to you but it always seems that gets lost in the liberal fog is the fact that someone else lost their life as well. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t be pro-death for the unborn and pro-life for those who kill-which group is more important to you? If you were more concerned about the truly innocent, maybe you’d see that there are other options for them as well. Those who have been found guilty should be put out to pasture and never be heard from again.
Liberal mindset-killing the unborn-yea, the death penalty-boo.
So, you are interested in proselytizing these animals. How nice. You have time while they are in jail. How often do you visit them to try and save them? How many have you converted?
Nice straw man. For those of you that are not sure what a straw man is, Rusty just set up a major one.
I’m calling the FBI - Rusty has been kidnapped and a conservative is using his name. On the other hand, nevermind.
Aloha Guy,
You know what, just to make everyone here feel REAL warm and fuzzy…I will admit that this is one area where I have been swayed by the conservative argument, including some made right here on this site.
A year ago I think I was for the gun ban. Now, not so much.
Don’t get too excited. He just forgot the “/sarc” tag.
Soap, I am legitimately against the ban. If you ignore my posts where I’m pooping in the woods, I think I’ve written a few things about the ban’s unconstitutionality.
For once, I am glad you are the right side of an issue. I am even more pleased chap has swung over to our side on the gun ban issue.
Now if we can just get you to see life is life and some life is more precious than others. I do not hold my bresth that you will ever see a baby in a womb as something to be protected while you see that child rapest on the other thread as someone whos life should be protected. That is just warped. so pardon me if I question anything you say.
If it’s allowed by the GC, then yes.
Then we can still shoot them because they represent a threat to our troops. I’m pretty sure these folks did something to warrant being detained. I know they weren’t all on their way to choir practice and happened to get on the wrong bus.
But some were, metaphorically speaking. It is undeniable that perfectly innocent people were swept up and sent to Guantanamo.
That is the whole point. If you are so “pretty sure” then the government should have no problem making a case against the detainee.
Oh wait…maybe not….
Yes they are all capable of being saved Rusty.
And if they get saved, the angels will rejoice and God will forgive them of their sins.
But God does not, and will not, forgive the consequences of those sins.
I would just like to hear anybody give me a rational explanation of how the death of an innocent unborn child incapable of defending itself is anything other than wrong. There is no moral equivalence to a child rapist. If these child rapists can be redeemed, they have an opportunity to speak with a clergyman right before the needle goes in.
I’d be willing to bet those five on the SC have never known a child rape victim.
Police knocked on John Cooey’s door before he killed Jessica Lunsford. If he’d been caught then, would that make him any less capable of murder or any less deserving of the death penalty?
If the court goes against Heller, I sure fell sorry for the poor dumb bastard who comes around here trying to collect my weapons. Do you imagin the libs on the court thinking about the millions of gun owners, and how they’re going to react to SCOTUS stomping on the second amendment? I can, and they better get their heads out of their @$$es if they don’t want to find out.
Hey, that guy’s shooting at us! Quick, take a picture so we can build a case!
Now we know why you never served.
Because he would have gotten his head shot off in less than 3 seconds by an un-uniformed “enemy combatant”.
Sighhhh…There are a lot more detainees in Gitmo than just the ones that were captured on a battlefield. There are many that were rounded up after being fingered by their neighbors, never mind the reliability of those accusers.
But please, continue to ignore facts and set up strawmen. Thankfully the Supreme Court (at least 55.55% of it) did not.
Sometimes innocent people go to jail in this country also. Our system is not 100% perfect all the time. Does that mean we stop putting people in jail because the small fraction of a percentage chance they may actually be inncoent?