Will Obama's speech mean...
- Thread starter kludge
- Start date
- Status
Winchester 73
member
And the SCOTUS Justices couldn't care less about Obama's speech.
kingpin008
Member
Could someone refresh my memory? When will the actual decision come down? Or is there no exact set deadline?
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
Most of the articles I've read lately have been pointing to late June.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Heller was going to get coverage today anyway from some media outlets, and some were going to ignore it.
What else was going on wasn't going to impact that.
What else was going on wasn't going to impact that.
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
My most authoritative source is Al Jazeera. 
Grizzly Adams
Member
I just spilled drink in my keyboard and shorted it out. Had to find a new one!
MSNBC acticle just said June.
MSNBC acticle just said June.
Fozzy_Bear
Member
CNN is guessing June too.
But even with the other news AND this being just the start... It's still in the top 5 stories of the day on their web site.
But even with the other news AND this being just the start... It's still in the top 5 stories of the day on their web site.
BobbyQuickdraw
Member
It has to be before the end of June, as the session ends. But theoretically it could be tomorrow, if they made a decision.
April/May - Possible, likelihood: 25%
June - Probably, likelihood 75%
April/May - Possible, likelihood: 25%
June - Probably, likelihood 75%
texas bulldog
Member
so the SCOTUS can give me a really strong pro-2A decision for my birthday!
...the rest of you could just get me ammo. preferably .357 and .223. but i'll take anything..........really.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Heck, that happened early in 1993.
Winchester 73
member
That's for sure!
Yahoo News had an articule posted that was fairly objective 
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Tue Mar 18, 1:12 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view
that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less
clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.
The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging
in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield
the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years.
A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said
early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives
"a general right to bear arms."
Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals'
gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice
John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.
"What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?" Roberts asked
at one point.
But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District's public safety concerns
could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the
strictest gun control law in the nation.
"Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...
to say no handguns here?" Breyer said.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer,
supported the individual right, but urged the justices not to decide the other question.
Instead, Clement said the court should allow for reasonable restrictions that
allow banning certain types of weapons, including existing federal laws.
He did not take a position on the District law.
The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment
since its ratification in 1791. The basic issue for the justices is whether the
amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right
is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security
of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
While the arguments raged inside, advocates of gun rights and opponents
of gun violence demonstrated outside court Tuesday.
Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying
"Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals
and terrorist buy guns."
Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted
"guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and
Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."
A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days
earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.
The high court's first extensive examination of the Second Amendment
since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District's ban.
Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C.,
defended the district's prohibition on handguns.
"We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life
and to keep us safe," Jenkins said.
Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national spokeswoman
for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning handguns in Washington
"is denying individuals the right to defend themselves."
Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have
to decide whether the District's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun
control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration,
with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's
official position at the court.
The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to
remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals,
although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because
"handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment
of the District of Columbia."
Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District
after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection.
His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller,
which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree
over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question
of individual versus collective rights.
Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading
of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Tue Mar 18, 1:12 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view
that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less
clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.
The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging
in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield
the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years.
A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said
early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives
"a general right to bear arms."
Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals'
gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice
John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.
"What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?" Roberts asked
at one point.
But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District's public safety concerns
could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the
strictest gun control law in the nation.
"Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...
to say no handguns here?" Breyer said.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer,
supported the individual right, but urged the justices not to decide the other question.
Instead, Clement said the court should allow for reasonable restrictions that
allow banning certain types of weapons, including existing federal laws.
He did not take a position on the District law.
The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment
since its ratification in 1791. The basic issue for the justices is whether the
amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right
is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security
of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
While the arguments raged inside, advocates of gun rights and opponents
of gun violence demonstrated outside court Tuesday.
Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying
"Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals
and terrorist buy guns."
Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted
"guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and
Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."
A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days
earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.
The high court's first extensive examination of the Second Amendment
since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District's ban.
Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C.,
defended the district's prohibition on handguns.
"We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life
and to keep us safe," Jenkins said.
Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national spokeswoman
for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning handguns in Washington
"is denying individuals the right to defend themselves."
Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have
to decide whether the District's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun
control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration,
with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's
official position at the court.
The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to
remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals,
although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because
"handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment
of the District of Columbia."
Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District
after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection.
His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller,
which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree
over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question
of individual versus collective rights.
Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading
of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."
Stump Water
Member
4:40pm EDT... no mention of it on msnbc.com front page.
Winchester 73
member
Yeah,right!Said Ms. Jenkins from her dorm room at the local Fenty Home for the Mentally Challenged.
- Status
Similar threads
