Comments on: Quote of the Day

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:10:42 +0000

“The antis are on the wrong side of history.”

So were the Imperial Japanese, the Apaches and the Zulus.

All went down with a serious fight.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:56:00 +0000

The prohibitionists took to the courts and regulatory agencies because they were unable to prevail via the political process. Now, after years of forceful pro-rights scholarship, the courts are starting to acknowledge the right to arms and prohibitionists’ judicial safe-haven is shrinking. The antis are on the wrong side of history, law and public opinion. In the long run, I doubt that their agenda will remain intact no matter how good their lawyers or how complete their control of regulatory bureaucracies.

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:24:14 +0000

“There are plenty of capable people who are eager to fight legal battles on 2A issues.”

On BOTH sides. I know good lawyers on both sides of this.

By: fred lapides

fred lapides — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:11:51 +0000

As for me, I have no problem with honest folks ownin g firearms. I do, however, note that record keeping is sloppy, just about anyone in many states can buy a gun, and some gun types feel that any weapon should be available to own, machine guns etc–and that bothers me. Further, a recent study I had seen the other day showed a graph that clearly depicted that those states with the most guns (owned) also had the most deaths by guns: a distinct correlation.
I have shot weapons while in the military but prefer, oddly enough, to have more faith in law enforcement than in my ability to protect my family by owning a gun. But I may be quirky in this…so go forth, for those in Chicago may soon find that they can better evaluate the Court ruling when gun ownership laws change. Whee I live, you can buy a gun, register it after you have been cleared, and can even carry it concealed. You can not though take it out of state without either permission or in violation of the law.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:44:09 +0000

I agree that this is the beginning of further legal battles. I don’t think that’s bad, however. It’ll just take time. There are plenty of capable people who are eager to fight legal battles on 2A issues.

By: renminbi

renminbi — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:17:24 +0000

It is good that this right is recognised ,but so are ones 5th amendment rights,but in reality they are protected little. See Instapundit 7.02AM link. This is going to have to be fought for. The politics on this are good though;gungrabbers are going to have a difficult time in the future.

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:55:24 +0000

“…charming”

Ginny, Scalia is a good writer, and he does his own writing, or at least his own final draft. So his opinions have a distinct flavor to them. Most appellate opinions are written by clerks, or by committees of clerks, and hence are lifeless and boring. Scalia goes against that trend.

By: G Hanson

G Hanson — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:50:51 +0000

“where well-trained police forces provide personal security”

A common delusion, which governments encourage by promoting vague slogans like “To protect and serve”.

Courts have ruled endlessly that police, and the governments which employ them, have no legal obligation to protect anyone, rich or poor. Police are armed for self-protection and no other reason.

By: Ginny

Ginny — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:27:59 +0000

The forcefulness and beauty of the style/content is charming.

By: Smitten Eagle

Smitten Eagle — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:10:06 +0000

I am delighted by the decision.

By: Tatyana

Tatyana — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:53:52 +0000

Joshua, take a look at the column on the left (Intrade). McCain wins: 30.7:31.
Obama wins:64.0:64.1

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:27:06 +0000

If only it could have been Chief Justice Scalia….

By: zenpundit

zenpundit — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:20:47 +0000

Quick reversals are rare for SCOTUS for the same reason senatorial courtesy persists – “you today, me tomorrow”

By: Joshua

Joshua — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:24:19 +0000

Tatyana, several other blogs I’ve perused today have already claimed that today’s ruling will help McCain, for the very reason you’ve brought up.

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:57:19 +0000

“…it doesn’t bother you that the opinions were divided 5:4 …”

A win is a win. I’ll take it.

If, as is likely, Obama becomes president and appoints one or more justices, as is likely, then the Court will reach outcomes that I don’t like.

Good thing this happened now.

The Supreme Court does not like to reverse itself. Five judges signed onto a strongly worded opinion.

In 2008, this is about as good as we can hope for.

By: Tatyana

Tatyana — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:39:37 +0000

Guys, it doesn’t bother you that the opinions were divided 5:4? Tht just 1 (one) voice separated us from elimination of the Amendment? That this is a spoiler of how things will turn if (when?) Obama becomes a President?

By: Jay@Soob

Jay@Soob — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:31:37 +0000

“where well-trained police forces provide personal security”

After both a phone call and a wait time. “Hang on a second before you kill me or rob my home. Just give me seven, eight minutes tops…”

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:16:36 +0000

No Comment.

By: LotharBot

LotharBot — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:30:59 +0000

“it is not the role of this Court to pronounce…”

Glad to finally have a justice who is willing to recognize the limits of the supreme court’s jurisdiction. If only the judges in certain other famous trials had done the same…

By: renminbi

renminbi — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:25:33 +0000

These laws have to be rewritten in an age where the MSM doesn’t set the debate.LOL gungrabbers!