Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in DC Gun Ban case today

The real problem I see from reading oral arguments today is that the attorney for DC and the Solicitor General on behalf of the US were both in some limited right that would allow for the ban. The attorney for D.C. started with the right as being solely about the Militia but was willing to concede that it could be an individual right but not a fundamental liberty interest and that it should only be subject to intermediate scrutiny and that so long as the restriction bears a reasonable relationship to the danger sought to be avoided the ban MIGHT be upheld. Only Scalia seemed to be fully on board with the right being a fundamental liberty interest but everyone else was flirting with intermediate scrutiny. My worry is that the three that seemed firmly in support of the ban will concede individual right but push the rest to say that it is not a fundamental liberty interest and therefore not subject to strict scrutiny. If that happens they could find the ban was valid because it does not ban ALL fire arms even if shotguns and rifles are to locked up and unloaded. They could also rule that it is subject to intemediate scrutiny and have the parties brief the issue of reasonableness of the ban. Nothing was really clear after today and I fear that we could end up with a weak ruling that it is an individual right with no real teeth.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
WTF?!?!?!?!

have you read any of the federalist and anti-federalist papers?
Click to expand...

Watermark frequently issues hysterical blurts with little connection to the truth, or even to reality. They seem to happen more often after someone has handed him his head in an argument, or said something he can't refute but still doesn't like. Probably 50% of his posts here are such vapid blatherings. All of them in this thread so far, fall into that category.

As you may have noticed, most people just ignore them and address real posters instead.
 
Last edited:
Can the congress remove individual liberties after a person has been punished?

Let's say, for instance, that congress passed a law that anyone caught doing a strike was to be arrested for disturbing the peace and have their freedom of speech and association removed for life.

No? That shouldn't be allowed?

Then why should the government be allowed to remove a right even more important than all of those other silly ones, the right to own a gun?
 
Little-Acorn said:
Watermark frequently issues hysterical blurts with little connection to the truth, or even to reality. They seem to happen more often after someone has handed him his head in an argument, or said something he can't refute but still doesn't like. Probably 50% of his posts here are such vapid blatherings. All of them in this thread so far, fall into that category.

As you may have noticed, most people just ignore them and address real posters instead.
Click to expand...

Typical righty, can't think so slanders. :lolup:

Ain't it the truth!
 
Water resorts to his usual emotional appeals and fallacious horseshit. WTF do conservative views on welfare or gay marriage have to do with the second amendment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top