« More Coverage... | Main | Discussion Topic: On Iowa Feral-Cat Bounty »

March 19, 2008

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.

Special Report: Supreme Court Hearing Favors Individual Gun Rights

From the Washington Post:

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. . .

The Supreme Court's last major ruling on the subject, in 1939, stressed the militia-related aspects of the provision.

[Chief Justice, John G.] 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. . . ."

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.

Comments

Yeah, now I don't have to get myself killed over this issue! Love Bush's appointees.

Frank

It's not a done deal yet, but it certainly does look promising. Remember, though, that the court will almost certainly still provide for "reasonable" restrictions by the states, and the definition of "reasonable" will hotly debated for generations to come. So the fight is far from over.

Sexy Man

Way to go G Dub!!! you all can Hate all you want on the Man but appointees are the Best for 2a issues I Voted for bush twice and if it was possible I wouldnt hesitate voting for him again...
Signed,
The Sexiest Man Alive!!!!

NLkg

Yea. I just also wanna say that Bush made a point of appointing these guys, because he supports the 2A. Way to go Bush!

Jeb 2008! haha

maybe taking it a bit too far...

Walt Smith

Kinda funny how the guy (G.W.) rallys our country after 911,ousts Sadam,tries to give Iraq a better way of life, sticks up for the 2nd ammendmant, and is the only president ever to give us money back to help us out (TWICE) and still catches more crap than a toilet.I wish he could be around for a third term.

RC

What are you guys talking about Bush
took us into the war unprepared, not enough troops or equipment or planning and the US world prestige has been greatly hurt, just look at Iran and Russia they more openly challenge the US on political issues now that they see the US is having trouble winning a "small" war.

YooperJack

RC
I couldn't agree more! Hell, it was only ten years ago we were watching impeachment hearings. I believe that the charge was perjury. "I didn't have sex with that woman".
At least this guy goes to work every day. WJC spent the last two years trying to cover his lies and sell pardons.
YooperJack

tom

Frank-Judge Roberts chided the attorney for DC during the hearing by asking if a total ban seemed reasonable. i think this court is going to issue a very favorable ruling.

cmcdonough

It's not a done deal yet, although so far everything seems encouraging. Should the court rule otherwise, guns will fly off gunstore shelves like never before. I also agree that this will not put the issue to rest, although an individual right ruling would be a considerable stake in the heart of antigunners. It will be interesting to see what the gungrabbers say should the ruling come down as an inidividual right, Im sure theyre spin machines will be operating overtime.....

cmcdonough

OH, and if you havent renewed your NRA membership, now would be a good time....

Mike

Will continue to wait with "baited" breath...this is far from over...but it does look promising.

Joel

Great news, but please give me a break with using this to defend Bush's presidency. Very bad presidents can do a few good things. WJC protected more American wilderness than any president by far, including TR. But I doubt many of you would say that that made him a good pres. By the same token, Bush has been good on guns, no question about it. And he deserves credit for that. But he's been an unmitigated disaster on the environment, particularly where it concerns public hunting lands. And honestly, anyone who even tries to defend his decision, reasoning, timing, preparedness . . . for invading Iraq is really drinking the kool-aid. And that, of course, is what will primarily define his presidency. In a word, a disaster. We will be feeling its affect for years to come, as his cowboy foreign policy has spawned a whole new generation of quite-understandable hatred for the US around the world, but especially in the Muslim world, which comprises a third of the people on the planet.
Hooray guns. Hooray Supreme Court. And even hooray fir Bush this instance. But let's not get carried away.

Hunter Ed

Well, said, Joel! I couldn't agree more. GWB deserves credit on guns and he appointed good justices. BUT, as a lifelong republican, I have felt cheated, fooled, and betrayed by almost everything else this man, whom I voted for, has done as president. He and Cheney invited Enron to write our energy policy; he turned the BLM--previously occupied with protecting wildlife--into a welcoming committee for every gas, oil, and mining company in the country . . . . Oh heck, I could go on and on, but I don't want to bore you all. Bottom line, I agree with Joel, let's not get carried away.

Jason

I am not a hundred percent sure if Bush deserves perfect score on 2A issues. If you recall he said he would sign the assualt weapons ban if they got it on his desk. After that I am a little unclear as what he did about 2A issues. I don't remember him pushing any good gun laws or signing any either. Is he a super gun guy because he was able to appoint 2 people who could read the consistution? That is a pretty low standard.

Mike Diehl

GWB hasn't worked a day in his life. He's the laziest least moral cowardly SOB to hold the office. 2nd Amendment wins, when they come, are down to citizens speaking up for their rights, not to turds like Shrub. He'd sell all of us out in a nanosecond if it meant his close personal friends could consolidate power or make more money in the process.

Joel

Jason,
Even I, as no fan of Pres. Bush's, will also give him big credit for protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits attempting to hold them culpable in the crimes of others. That was also a big day for gun owners.

William

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

YooperJack

I guess you guys are right. This 4 per cent unemployment rate is a disaster! How can we go hunting and fishing when we have to work? Any POTUS who spends most of his time trying to fix the economy is wating that time. We'd be much farther ahead if our President spent most of his waking hours trying to be popular, and the rest of his time showing Interns around the Oval Office.

We were attacked on September 11th. This President chose to respond, so
that more attacks do not occur. According to Barack Obama's Pastor, we should have sent Osama bin Laden a thank you card and maybe some foreign aid. It was after all, our fault. After the first Gulf War, we left the Madman of Bagdad still in power. He regularly violated the truce and resisted any and all attempts to monitor the terms of the peace. He tried to assassinate an ex-President. He killed hundreds of thousands of Kurdish people because they didn't fit the mold. He was paying the families of suicide bombers $25,000 if the attack resulted in Israeli death. He had an old Boeing 707 set up so that his people could practice airline hijacking. I could go on for weeks. This President eliminated him. As I remember, a vast majority of both Congress and the American People, supported this action. Because of this action, approximately 50,000 members of al Qaeda have been killed. These are people who, if given the chance, would've come to America to kill us here. They got their chance in Iraq, and now their dead.

Yes, this President's bad. We'll soon have the chance for change. If we want Democrat change, we've got one hell of a choice. We can go with the woman who was part of every major decision, made in the White House, for eight years, except NAFTA, or we can go with the guy who somehow voted "Present" 130 times on crucial Senate bills. This guy also said in the last debate that, if he's elected, we'll stop honoring NAFTA, but told friends in Canada not to worry. He just said that to help him in the debate.

I love it when people take a stand!
YooperJack

Bubba

Well said Yoop!
I really have to wonder when self-proclaimed Republicans whine about Dubya! What do they expect!?
If you really don't like what the president is doing, if you have all the answers, if you can make the entire U.S. of A. happy, then come on down! I'm sure that Dubya will listen! Who wouldn't if "anybody" could make the ultimate decision and "not" either harm nor help anyone!
Right, Mike Diehl!?

Bubba

Joel

Wow! You really know someone's drinking the Kool-Aid when they use the only positive economic figure left in the midst of what every financial analysts is now calling a full-blown recession to defend W.
So, let me get this right, Yoop: You believe Bush invaded Iraq in response to September 11? You believe that Saddam--our man in the Middle East right up until he got out of line in Kuwait--constituted are real threat to the US? Please?
Those atrocities you enumerate, by the way, were almost entirely committed while we supported Saddam. That's right , with our weapons, our help. All of which, by the way, were just fine with the US, right up until Bush need to convince the world it was time to oust Saddam.
Anyway, I'm sure I'm wasting my time. I doubt I can convince a hardcore Bushy that his man is no mainstream Republican at all, but rather a ultr-right-wing extremist who believes not in small government at all but in big government for the rich, who peddles fear to justify an ultra-aggressive foreign policy.
No more than you--or the Bush administration--can convince me that the US was gravely threatened by a piss-ant leader of a weakling state that no single other country of any military might--even within the region--feared in the least.
Anyway, I'll stop. You're now free to call me unpatriotic and an apologist for terrorists.


Joel

Oh, Bubba, I meant to say how much I love your solution, which boils down to "anyone who doesn't have all the answers should just shut up and let the president do what must be a very difficult job."
Right, we'd have a heck of a democracy then, wouldn't we?

Mike Diehl

@Bubba -

The record shows that Bush doesn't listen to anyone who isn't going to tell him something that confirms what he already believes. I have no use for the man. If you can find something there to admire you're working hard at turning a sows ear into a silk purse.

If the nation survives the six trillion dollars (1 trillion current 2 trillion projected) debt he's added pursuing a voluntary and unnecessary war it won't be because of anything he's done to increase revenues or otherwise reduce spending. If the hook n bullet crowd winds up with our second amendment rights intact it won't be because he's got any particular respect for the Bill of Rights.

Give me McCain or even (either) Clinton ANY DAY over Shrub.

MPN

Mike Diehl,
Not Clinton please.

MPN

Bubba

I see several out there that are very willing to bash Dubya! And I suppose that's okay. That's one of the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans!
My point is, if you're willing to tell POTUS that he's doing something wrong, why aren't you willing to step forward and fill his shoes?
It's easy to sit back and judge Bush and say he is wrong. By filling his shoes, by reading the briefs that he recieves daily, by talking to the people that send him information daily, to make the decisions on a day to day basis that HE has to make and affect the lives he affects with his decisions, I admire the man!
I'll be honest, I WOULD NOT WANT HIS JOB! Period! But somebody has to do THAT job! I just get to help select that "somebody" every four years. If my "selection" wins, I try backing them as much as I can. If my "option" looses, THEN I can gripe!

"If you are going to take a man's money for a job, back that man in word and deed. If you disagree with him, quit the job! Then you can complain about him all you want!"

Bubba

YooperJack

Well said Bubba!
I always wonder how you can make a decision on something critical where you have a brilliant person for something (perhaps an Army General) and someone just as smart on the other side (maybe a USMC Genral). How do you choose? Same would apply to domestic issues with economists, health, etc.
YooperJack




Our Blogs



Syndicate