I'm out of the information loop for a few days. Anything going on with the Supreme Court appeal of DC vs Heller? At least I think that's the name of the case.

Wink, here is the oral argument transcript from March 18, 2008, the last official action in the case. Looks like the vote will be at least 5-4 for an individual right, subject to reasonable regulation.

The standard of review may be tighter than that - i.e., the Court may decide that any regulation will be subject to strict scrutiny, but that's not likely, IMHO.

What this means for the DC ordinance at issue in Heller and other so-called gun control laws remains to be seen.

A written decision from the Court is expected some time in June.

Heller Oral Argument Transcript

Assuming the Court comes down for the individual right, what would that forebode for HR 1022? As you may know, the libs want to again outlaw weapons having certain cosmetic attributes. If my right own and use a weapon for all moral and just purposes is an individual right, how can my ownership of an "assault weapon" (which it is definitely not) be compromised? I don't see the libs trying to outlaw certain political speech with which they disagree, save for anything they hear on conservative talk radio. And I certainly do not see them trying to put and end to the Third Amendment...

My "feel" after the oral arguments is that DC's ban is toast. Period. As will all other categorical bans. At least a 5-4 vote on that, maybe even 6-3.

As for where they draw the line, that's anyone's guess. If the Chief Justice writes the opinion, then it will be a very narrow one, with no "big victory" to either side beyond tossing DC's ban. If Justice Thomas writes it, then the anti-gunners are going to have a stroke.

My opinion is that the liberals will write any law, regardless as to whether it violates the Second Amendment or any amendment to our Constitution. They know they can do this because every law needs to be tested in court to determine its constitutionality. It's just a matter as to whether the law is challenged or not. The Sixteenth Amendment bringing us the income tax was never ratified by the States. Rather, the gummint just declared it "in force." Because challenging its constitutionality would be an interminably long process and cost more money than even God is rumored to have, it has stood ever since it was stuffed down our throats. It is proof positive that liberals know nothing about the Second Amendment's codifying of our Right to own and use firearms for all moral and just purposes because they have it continually under attack. We do not see them trying to eviscerate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the only others that expressly identify the "Right of the People." If you were to ask a liberal to identify who are the People referenced in the three Amendments specifying a "Right of the People," they would say everybody, except those who own guns. To them, we are potential criminals. You would then have their anti-Freedom agenda on full display...


As for how the decision will come down, I would not put it past the Clintoons to lean on the liberal Justices to vote against it, even though there is massive evidence in the writings of our Founders and scholars all through history, here and abroad, that the Right to self-defense is an individual right and cannot be abridged or infringed. Consider: If the ability to defend yourself against being killed is limited, then you have no Right to live. You can be killed by anyone with a greater weapon than you, or by any State with the power to decide your life or death.