Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

[cas]

Originally Posted by sjl127

The more I review the arguments, peruse the briefs, and read the news articles, I'm afraid to comment that this is the beginning of the end of our second amendment.

That happened back when the banned machin guns on mass without having a "special license" and when the created the ATF.
Whenever you get a "premit" you say to the Government i need permission to handle these. All Rights reserved without prejudice UCC 1-207,1-308
http://www.constitutionpartypa.com/u...07___1-308.htm

[Sebastian]

Originally Posted by cas

That happened back when the banned machin guns on mass without having a "special license" and when the created the ATF.
Whenever you get a "premit" you say to the Government i need permission to handle these. All Rights reserved without prejudice UCC 1-207,1-308
http://www.constitutionpartypa.com/u...07___1-308.htm

Ah, the PA constitution party. The Party to turn to when you want to make gun owners look bad by suggesting black politicians ought to be "hung" at pro-gun rallies. We don't need that kind of help. No thanks.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by cas

That happened back when the banned machin guns on mass without having a "special license" and when the created the ATF.
Whenever you get a "premit" you say to the Government i need permission to handle these. All Rights reserved without prejudice UCC 1-207,1-308
http://www.constitutionpartypa.com/u...07___1-308.htm

Interesting.

As a point of reference, the UCC, where adopted, applies only to certain specified common classes of commercial transactions. It in no way applies generally to rights reserved by the people or to powers granted by them to the gov't.

Application of general provisions in the UCC to issues like federal machine gun regulation, while incredibly novel (and even entertaining), miss the mark by a wide margin.

ETA: well having donned a tinfoil hat, delving deep into conspiracies of worldwide scope, I've discovered a treasuretrove of those who worship the UCC as general law.

"Conspiracy theories
The Uniform Commercial Code plays a significant part in the legal theories of far right groups such as the Christian Patriot movement, Sovereign Citizen Movement, and the Posse Comitatus. Their theory is that a secret treaty made in 1930 put the United States and other countries around the world in "bankruptcy" with the "international bankers" being the "creditor/rulers", who prefer commercial law to common law. An alternate theory, held by the Montana Freemen, is that an "affidavit of truth" submitted "in commerce" could create a lien which had to be paid, such as the "draft liens" created by LeRoy Schweitzer, who was eventually convicted of fraud and other federal crimes.[4] The newer "redemption movement" even claims that the Uniform Commercial Code is now "actually the supreme law of the land".[5] The Constitution Party of Pennsylvania claims that the UCC governs all human interaction in the U.S., and that using the language contained in §1-207 of UCC such as "without prejudice" or "under protest" protects the signer from being bound by any contract or that the signer is not recognizing a government's jurisdiction over the signer.[6]" (emphasis supplied)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code

I never heard of this strange behavior before and I wouldn't have believed it, but there we go.

[Sebastian]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

I never heard of this strange behavior before and I wouldn't have believed it, but there we go.

Wow. Sounds like some folks aren't taking their medication.

[cas]

You might want to look into the precious "NRA" as they love to sponsor gun control. You should also look into the definition of the "UNITED STATES" as congress has defined it. I won't post it cause yall just mock whatever information is presented you . Try to bring the Constitution (national or state) to your defense in any district or county court you will get railroaded by the "judge" . There is a huge difference in "UNITED STATES citizen" and a "State National", you might want to check it out. How else would the federal corporation or as it is defined by congress "corporation" get common law courts(the only legal court in America) and admirlty courts in sinc? By definition you consent to your Rights being taking away by the federal corporation under the contract clause in the Constitution, so any contract entered into with said corporation puts you under direct rule of the UN by way of the treaty the US entered into. As any treaty entered into is part of the Constitution. America is a loose knit collaboration of 40+ distinct different Countries . Anyone who says otherwise is a fool . Being a "UNITES STATES "citizen is for sheep who are lead by Tyranical evil men and women

[RocketFoot]

I haven't seen this posted yet, but here is an interesting article about 5 of the Justices attitudes during the hearings...the article is from the Center for Individual Freedom.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_iss...or-Keeping.htm

Five for Keeping … and Bearing The American people dodged a bullet -- by retaining their individual right to keep and bear arms -- a week ago Tuesday. At least that was the clear impression left by a solid majority of five Supreme Court Justices during an historic oral argument in the first Second Amendment case to be heard by the highest court in the land in nearly 70 years.
The decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-920, likely won’t be announced until the very end of Supreme Court’s current term in June. But from the first question asked by Chief Justice John Roberts to the ultimate question posed by perennial swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, there was little doubt among anyone who listened that at least five justices had already decided that the Second Amendment guarantees exactly what it says -- “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”
Indeed, that “operative clause” was the basis for the very first question posed to the lawyer arguing to limit the Second Amendment in order to save D.C.’s toughest-in-the-nation handgun ban. Just a minute into Walter Dellinger’s argument, Chief Justice Roberts noted that, if D.C. was correct that the Second Amendment protected only a “militia-related” right, then the Amendment’s language was “certainly an odd way … to phrase” it. “If [the Second Amendment] is limited to State militias, why would they say ‘the right of the people’?” the Chief Justice wondered. “In other words, why wouldn’t they say ‘state militias have the right to keep arms’?”
The Chief Justice’s question was just the opening salvo, with the entry of the next judicial combatant coming as something of a surprise. It was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, as usual, could be the critical and likely deciding vote. But, for D.C., there was no vote to find from Justice Kennedy for restricting Second Amendment rights. Indeed, Justice Kennedy was perhaps the strongest and clearest voice for the proposition that the right “to keep and bear Arms” not only protects, but was always meant to protect, an individual’s right to self defense.
Justice Kennedy explained that both the Second Amendment’s opening reference to a “well-regulated militia” and its protection of a broader “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” could “be read consistently” together. “[i]n effect the Amendment says we reaffirm the right to have a militia,” Justice Kennedy explained, “but in addition, there is a right to bear arms.”
There was more. Throughout the argument, Justice Kennedy continued to insist that the purpose of the Second Amendment had to include the right to self defense. For instance, when D.C.’s lawyer argued that the Second Amendment was restricted to “a military context,” Justice Kennedy immediately inquired, “It had nothing to do with the concern of the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indiana tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that?” It was this self-defense principle that Justice Kennedy returned to time and time again, even going so far as to explain, “in my view,” the Second Amendment says “there’s a general right to bear arms without reference to the militia…”
Such sentiments had to be encouraging for both Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who had to realize that they didn’t need to cajole or hand hold Justice Kennedy all the way to a decision. And, while Justice Thomas maintained his traditional silence from the bench, the security of Justice Kennedy’s vote allowed Justice Scalia to attack D.C.’s handgun ban with relish. Indeed, during a line of Justice David Souter’s questions suggesting that the Second Amendment should be limited in high-crime areas, Justice Scalia retorted, “All the more reason to allow a homeowner to have a handgun.”
Finally, there was Justice Samuel Alito, who brought home the fact that the D.C. handgun ban faced serious problems under any sort of constitutional scrutiny at all. “[H]ow could the District code provision survive under any standard of review where they totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that’s most commonly used for self-defense?” he asked. When the lawyer defending D.C.’s gun restrictions argued that citizens could still keep rifles or shotguns in the home, Justice Alito reminded him that “at least what the codes says” is that such long guns “have to be unloaded and disassembled or [trigger] locked at all times, even presumably if someone is breaking into the home[.]” This was a point that garnered particular amusement as D.C.’s lawyer tried to explain how easy and fast it was to unlock a gun, only to have the Chief Justice observe that it might not be so easy in the dead of night or in the heat of the moment. “So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses…” the Chief Justice responded.
Such a lack of common sense doomed the D.C. gun laws from the start. But such stupidity is not without merit. After all, it does seem to have finally pointed to the expected High Court pronouncement that Americans really do have an individual right “to keep and bear Arms,” just like the Bill of Rights actually says.

[sjl127]

Last day for them in this session, and they will rule on DC today...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/beltway/supreme-court/

[knight0334]

Its all or nothing today...

[awkx]

Originally Posted by sjl127

Last day for them in this session, and they will rule on DC today...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/beltway/supreme-court/

Are you sure? From your URL, it says "The justices have 26 cases left to resolve before the term ends in late June." And from the Supreme Court Calendar [PDF], it shows them being in session until June 29.

[ChamberedRound]

According to the ScotUS blog, they've already issued opinions for today, and DC v Heller wasn't one of them:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Today’s Opinions
Monday, June 9th, 2008 10:50 am | Ben Winograd

Today’s unanimous opinion by Justice Thomas in Quanta v. LG (06-937) is available here.

Today’s unanimous opinion by Justice Alito in Allison Engine v. United States (07-214) is available here.

Today’s 6-3 opinion by Chief Justice Roberts in Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture (07-474) is available here. Justice Stevens issued a dissenting opinion in which Justices Souter and Ginsburg joined.

Today’s unanimous opinion by Justice Thomas in Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity (07-210) is now available here.