Good News So Far From The Supremes

In Second Amendment Case, High Court Majority Appears to Support Individual Right to Own Guns

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."

Click here to read FindLaw's case history on the handgun ban.

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.

Blah blah and yadda yadda.

Nowhere is the Yellowstream Media telling the whole truth, namely the fact that a lower court has ALREADY declared D.C.'s ban to be unlawful, but that you see would be reporting the news rather than offering opinion.

But at least is sure looks like the Court will send the D.C. commies packing, so let's keep our fingers crossed that they do it with a bag of chips as well, and I am heartened that Roberts sounded like this entire handgun ban deal really pissed him off.

They WILL uphold the lower court's decision, declaring D.C. to be in the wrong, but what I don't want but believe is going to happen anyway is they'll agree that SOME regulation is necessary. If Scalia and Roberts had their way they'd order Washington to permit gun ownership immediately if not sooner as long as those wishing to acquire one were without felony records, but I do think they'll be a compromise.

Interesting that Boortz, Ingraham, and Limbaugh all pretty much said the same thing today; that they'd be keeping an eye open for the Court's decision, but since none of the tepid trio has any clue as to what the fuss is really all about, they couldn't engage in anything close to resembling a meaningful dialog on the subject. Laura and Rush could care less about the 2nd, and Neal is so scared shitless of guns he be an open ANTI if he could get away with it.

So one again we're forced to rely on Blogs to lead the way, but I for one am not falling for the lawyer trick of believing this to be so very complex as to defy description.

From the very beginning the smart money said that they'd order D.C. to get back to the drawing board because the 2nd IS about individual rights. The unknown is but of course how many hoops they'll force us to jump through along the way.