With respekts, the title is a wee bit misleading. The justices won't actually present their opinion until the end of the term in the Spring.

That said, I listened to the audio of yesterday's oral arguments and was thoroughly impressed with the plaintiff's attorney, Alan Gura. He was never at a loss for an answer and easily quoted case law dating back to the 1th century. He made a much more convincing case than the DC attorney did.

Oh, man. Some douchebag is guessing which way the justices are sailing by their questions. What an ass. Perhaps he/she should go clean their gun with one in the chamber.

everything i've read is predicting that they'll uphold the right to own handguns. i wonder how that decision will effect waiting periods and all that, if at all.

They ought to hand them out for free in D.C.

Call it term limits.

I predict that this is just a tease--the government has long abandoned it's obligation to protect rights, and uphold the Constitution.

I predict that this is just a tease--the government has long abandoned it's obligation to protect rights, and uphold the Constitution.

there was a hint that they may require locks or some such. but i doubt it.

i think the supreme court does ok, especially compared to every other part of the government.

i think the supreme court does ok, especially compared to every other part of the government.

Agreed. But being less retarded than the Executive and Legislative branches still leaves them a bit retarded.

United States v. Miller -- Keeping an bearing short barrelled shot guns isn't protected because they have no militry usefulness, despite the fact that short barrelled shot guns were routinely issued in the military for close quarters combat in trenches and such.

Also, they completley abandoned the notion that all rights are to be protected wheter enumerated or not, and that the right of the people (militias not specified and irrelevent ) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (purpose for keeping and bearing not specified and irrelevent).

I'm sorry, but apart from speculation, nobody can predict the leaning on a justice by their line of questions or commentary. Every seasoned constitutional lawyer I have ever listened to on this subject states that anyone's read is pure speculation. Justices who eventually rule one way are just as likely to appear to have taken the same or opposite stance during deliberation and questioning. Now, with that said, the general gut check is that Scally, Black Man's Burden, Kennedy, and Alito will overturn the DC ruling. Not sure on the other five.

I wonder if Scalia refers to Thomas as his moulie?

Seems to me, this is an argument over a shitty sentence.

'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.'

This could really use some comma work. If you delete the appositive phrases it becomes, 'A well regulated militia shall not be infringed.'

So, you could rewrite it as, 'Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

So, um, there you go.

Lownotes: Your sense of grammar sucks, or you subscibe to the validity of the following nonsense:

I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

III. No Soldier shall, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, and the persons or things to be seized.

V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, without just compensation.

VI. In all criminal prosecutions, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

VII. In Suits at common law, than according to the rules of the common
law.

VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or to the people.

If you want to accurately and precisely rewrite it, so it conforms to less formal and more contemporary modality, try this:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because the existence of a well regulated militia is contingent upon an armed populace; a well regulated militia, in turn, is neccessary for the security of a free state.

Lownotes: Seems to me, this is an argument over a shitty sentence.

...

So, um, there you go.

I've had this same thought. It's like monkeys puzzling over a typo in a time capsule until it becomes the cause of TOTAL WAR 15,000 AD, PURIST MONKEYS VS INTERPRETATIONAL MONKEYS, WE'LL SETTLE THIS IN THE BATTLEPITS.

No, Loki. The way you haphazardly deleted necessary phrases in your examples is not the same as what I was doing.

After all that Loki-flavored dickedness, you struck at the heart of my intentions.

I like your version of the Second Amendment, and it makes me feel just dandy. Actually, I'd like to see your version of the full list.

So, slow down on the bitchtittery, turbo.

bitchtittery

3xLOL pts

i think that perhaps lownotes does just fine with his grammar. in fact, there was that NYT (i think?) chart that showed the different ways that the sentence could be interpreted.