Second Amendment -- Say goodbye to your guns?

[Gilding the Lily]

Lilly- You need to go back to law school, or read the statutes. FEDERAL LAW, ALWAYS SUPERCEDES "STATE LAW" UNLESS OF COURSE, STATE LAW IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE FEDERAL CODE......

AS IT STANDS, THE LAW WAS PASSED BY THE SUPREME COURT, IRREGARDLESS, OF TEXAS STATUES IN THIS REGARD.

TO PUT THIS IN LAYMENS TERMS, THE GOVERNEMT CAN CONFISCATE, ANY PROPERTY, FOR ANY "PRIVATE" PURPOSE, NO LONGER FOR THE "PUBLIC" GOOD, AS THE LAW WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED.

I BELIEVE THAT STATE OF TEXAS, DID CHANGE THE IMMINENT DOMAIN LAW, DO STOP, SUCH AS WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED AT TEXAS STADIUM. BUT..., THAT ACTION, HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED, APPEALED, TO SENT BEFORE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FOR A RULING. GOOD GRIEF...,,, :angry:

Air surf. For a surfer, you sure don't relax much.

Now you are just showing your stripes, among other things. "Irregardless," [sic] I will pour you another drink.

First: Perhaps you forgot about the Constitution. The Supreme Court does not PASS law, but simply interprets the law. Congress passes law. (yes, there is debate about legislative rulings). In the Supreme Court case you are likely discussing, Kelo, the Court simply interpreted the CITY COUNCIL's actions under CONNECTICUT statute to determine if they acted within the confines of the Constitution. The Court upheld the CITY's judgment.

Second: Who confiscated the property in Texas? Was it the federal government? NO! It was LOCAL GOVERNMENT! Who confiscated the property in the Kelo case? Was it the federal government? NO! It was LOCAL GOVERNMENT!

Third: Who changed the laws after the Kelo eminent domain case? Was it STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS? YES! You even said so yourself. Who EXEMPTED the Texas Stadium from the new law? The Texas LOCAL GOVERNMENT!

Fourth: Why would it be sent back to the Supreme Court for a ruling as you say? Because it essentially was just decided 2+ years ago!

Fifth: What action did the Supreme Court interpret? It interpreted the action of the LOCAL Government in Connecticut in light of the constitution.

Sixth: A simple LQQK on Wiki or google would have shown you that the Supreme Court sees this as a STATE's issue and the court usually upholds the rights of STATES to make their own definitions of public use within the confines of the constitution. (of course, you may well have tried, but wiki probably doesn't come up with anything when you type "imminent domain").

I will repeat:Your beef is mostly a state's issue (which it should be), and perhaps an issue with the Supreme Court.

I know it is so easy to blame Congress or the federal government for all your problems, but serisouly, sometimes, things are left to the states... as in the Texas Sadium decision.

 

[American Air Surf]

Air surf. For a surfer, you sure don't relax much.

Now you are just showing your stripes, among other things. "Irregardless," [sic] I will pour you another drink.

First: Perhaps you forgot about the Constitution. The Supreme Court does not PASS law, but simply interprets the law. Congress passes law. (yes, there is debate about legislative rulings). In the Supreme Court case you are likely discussing, Kelo, the Court simply interpreted the CITY COUNCIL's actions under CONNECTICUT statute to determine if they acted within the confines of the Constitution. The Court upheld the CITY's judgment.

Second: Who confiscated the property in Texas? Was it the federal government? NO! It was LOCAL GOVERNMENT! Who confiscated the property in the Kelo case? Was it the federal government? NO! It was LOCAL GOVERNMENT!

Third: Who changed the laws after the Kelo eminent domain case? Was it STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS? YES! You even said so yourself. Who EXEMPTED the Texas Stadium from the new law? The Texas LOCAL GOVERNMENT!

Fourth: Why would it be sent back to the Supreme Court for a ruling as you say? Because it essentially was just decided 2+ years ago!

Fifth: What action did the Supreme Court interpret? It interpreted the action of the LOCAL Government in Connecticut in light of the constitution.

Sixth: A simple LQQK on Wiki or google would have shown you that the Supreme Court sees this as a STATE's issue and the court usually upholds the rights of STATES to make their own definitions of public use within the confines of the constitution. (of course, you may well have tried, but wiki probably doesn't come up with anything when you type "imminent domain").

I will repeat:Your beef is mostly a state's issue (which it should be), and perhaps an issue with the Supreme Court.

I know it is so easy to blame Congress or the federal government for all your problems, but serisouly, sometimes, things are left to the states... as in the Texas Sadium decision.

Lilly- That the US Supreme court, does not pass laws, (was typo on my part, sorry)

First and foremost, I don't drink- It riots the brain cells, as well as contributes to other social diseases.

Secondly, "I said before, no case has gone befoe the U.S. Supreme Court, that would challenge, the high courts ruling on confiscating property for private /gain/ not for the public good.

Thirdly, The Constitution, 5th Amendment is clear on how the law was supposed to implimented/interrpreted. And it wasn't supposed to be interrpreted, as "Confiscate people's private property, force them to sell, take what $$ was offered them, (unless, as some did, went to court, for additional percieved value). This is contrary to the U.S. Constitution 5th Amendment. Plain and Simple.

Fourthly, State laws mirror Federal Law, The "States" can exceed, but not regress there from.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constit...dment05/14.html

What the U.S. Supreme Court is sanctioning, is seizure of personal property. This all falls in line, with the Coming World Government, and Fascism (Corporations Rule), which is sweeping the United States. And the keystone to all this is the public's right to bear arms- Once that is gone, and it will be, LQQK out, becasue we have assuredly lost our protections due to the Patriot Act. ..... Good Grief,,,,, :down:

Lastly, It was to be "Serf", not Surf, in my ID. Serf = pauper, slave, vessel

One final note- I think citizens up north, were so pissed off with the imminent domain law, that they "locally" tried to confiscate one of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices house. Not sure how that one turned out. But was is definately good for the goose is good for the gander...

 

[American Air Surf]

Air surf. For a surfer, you sure don't relax much.

Now you are just showing your stripes, among other things. "Irregardless," [sic] I will pour you another drink.

First: Perhaps you forgot about the Constitution. The Supreme Court does not PASS law, but simply interprets the law. Congress passes law. (yes, there is debate about legislative rulings). In the Supreme Court case you are likely discussing, Kelo, the Court simply interpreted the CITY COUNCIL's actions under CONNECTICUT statute to determine if they acted within the confines of the Constitution. The Court upheld the CITY's judgment.

Second: Who confiscated the property in Texas? Was it the federal government? NO! It was LOCAL GOVERNMENT! Who confiscated the property in the Kelo case? Was it the federal government? NO! It was LOCAL GOVERNMENT!

Third: Who changed the laws after the Kelo eminent domain case? Was it STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS? YES! You even said so yourself. Who EXEMPTED the Texas Stadium from the new law? The Texas LOCAL GOVERNMENT!

Fourth: Why would it be sent back to the Supreme Court for a ruling as you say? Because it essentially was just decided 2+ years ago!

Fifth: What action did the Supreme Court interpret? It interpreted the action of the LOCAL Government in Connecticut in light of the constitution.

Sixth: A simple LQQK on Wiki or google would have shown you that the Supreme Court sees this as a STATE's issue and the court usually upholds the rights of STATES to make their own definitions of public use within the confines of the constitution. (of course, you may well have tried, but wiki probably doesn't come up with anything when you type "imminent domain").

I will repeat:Your beef is mostly a state's issue (which it should be), and perhaps an issue with the Supreme Court.

I know it is so easy to blame Congress or the federal government for all your problems, but serisouly, sometimes, things are left to the states... as in the Texas Sadium decision.

Lilly- That the US Supreme court, does not pass laws, (was typo on my part, sorry)

First and foremost, I don't drink- It riots the brain cells, as well as contributes to other social diseases.

Secondly, "I said before, no case has gone befoe the U.S. Supreme Court, that would challenge, the high courts ruling on confiscating property for private /gain/ not for the public good.

Thirdly, The Constitution, 5th Amendment is clear on how the law was supposed to implimented/interrpreted. And it wasn't supposed to be interrpreted, as "Confiscate people's private property, force them to sell, take what $$ was offered them, (unless, as some did, went to court, for additional percieved value). This is contrary to the U.S. Constitution 5th Amendment. Plain and Simple.

Fourthly, State laws mirror Federal Law, The "States" can exceed, but not regress there from.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constit...dment05/14.html

What the U.S. Supreme Court is sanctioning, is seizure of personal property. This all falls in line, with the Coming World Government, and Fascism (Corporations Rule), which is sweeping the United States. And the keystone to all this is the public's right to bear arms- Once that is gone, and it will be, LQQK out, becasue we have assuredly lost our protections due to, yes "terrorism" the Patriot Act. ..... Good Grief,,,,, :down:

Lastly, It was to be "Serf", not Surf, in my ID. Serf = pauper, slave, vessel

One final note- I think citizens up north, were so pissed off with the imminent domain law, that they "locally" tried to confiscate one of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices house(s). Not sure how that one turned out. But, what is definately good for the goose, is good for the gander...

 

[local 12 proud]

Yea, yea...Left click once ASS!

....Errrrr AAS!

 

[delldude]

Yea, yea...Left click once ASS!

....Errrrr AAS!

Tell me more................

 

[local 12 proud]

Tell me more................

Everything you can Imagine and then some BRO.....!!!!!

82 for a High, 67 for a low.....It was Miserable

Regards,

Local 12

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Lilly- That the US Supreme court, does not pass laws, (was typo on my part, sorry)

Fourthly, State laws mirror Federal Law, The "States" can exceed, but not regress there from.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constit...dment05/14.html

What the U.S. Supreme Court is sanctioning, is seizure of personal property. This all falls in line, with the Coming World Government, and Fascism (Corporations Rule), which is sweeping the United States. And the keystone to all this is the public's right to bear arms- Once that is gone, and it will be, LQQK out, becasue we have assuredly lost our protections due to, yes "terrorism" the Patriot Act. ..... Good Grief,,,,, :down:

Lastly, It was to be "Serf", not Surf, in my ID. Serf = pauper, slave, vessel

Tell it to your Senator representing you in Washington and watch him/her laugh. Tell it to your local representative in the State Legislature and he/she will likely hear you out.

So, answer me this: exactly what federal law did the Texas law mirror? What Federal law did the Connecticut law mirror?

You misspelled your handle? Are you sure you don't drink? (Maybe I am drinking... I always see double when you post!) Don't feel bad if I consider your entire post a typo. Cheers!

 

[American Air Surf]

Tell it to your Senator representing you in Washington and watch him/her laugh. Tell it to your local representative in the State Legislature and he/she will likely hear you out.

So, answer me this: exactly what federal law did the Texas law mirror? What Federal law did the Connecticut law mirror?

You misspelled your handle? Are you sure you don't drink? (Maybe I am drinking... I always see double when you post!) Don't feel bad if I consider your entire post a typo. Cheers!

All I can say is this- As a BARTENDER, on a U.S. Aviation site, sure your not serving yourself, instead of your customers? I figrued on the double post this time, If you didn't get the FIRST time, you might the Second-, Since your symbol is a Lilly, you must be a "real"- "PISTIL", and a golden one at that-

P.S. Becasue you just don't get it......, done with you...

 

[American Air Surf]

Yea, yea...Left click once ASS!

....Errrrr AAS!

Keep it to yourself.., HITLER...

 

[Gilding the Lily]

All I can say is this- As a BARTENDER, on a U.S. Aviation site, sure your not serving yourself, instead of your customers? I figrued on the double post this time, If you didn't get the FIRST time, you might the Second-, Since your symbol is a Lilly, you must be a "real"- "PISTIL", and a golden one at that-

P.S. Becasue you just don't get it......, done with you...

That is a good way of saying that you cannot answer a simple question based upon your last substantive post:

So, answer me this: exactly what federal law did the Texas law mirror? What Federal law did the Connecticut law mirror?

Perhaps Fort Worth -- or Arlington -- is not all it is cracked up to be.

Love,
Your golden, bartending, gynoecium

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Even the makeup of the current court (which I am a fan of), while inclined to give an individual right interpretation, will still make that right limited in some fashion.

It seems that my -- and many others' on this board -- prediction was well founded.

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home and in case of confrontation. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Scalia correctly noted: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." The opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

 

[Tug McGroin]

It seems that my -- and many others' on this board -- prediction was well founded.

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home and in case of confrontation. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammo! Great News!

 

[tech2101]

It seems that my -- and many others' on this board -- prediction was well founded.

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home and in case of confrontation. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Scalia correctly noted: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." The opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

A great ruling. The scope of this opinion is in its infancy. Look for many state/local challenges soon. This will be fun to read.

 

[delldude]

A great ruling. The scope of this opinion is in its infancy. Look for many state/local challenges soon. This will be fun to read.

State and local challenges will be hard pressed at best.

Its been decided.

The Supremes decided....no argument.

You sound like Nancy Pelosi..

June 26, 2008
Pelosi Says D.C. Could Continue Gun Regulation
@ 12:29 pm by Andy Barr

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.

"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools."

- Mike Soraghan

ShareThis
Archived under: Civil Rights, Lawmaker News, News
Tags: Nancy Pelosi





745 Comments »
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.

1.

YOU LOSE, NANCY!

Comment by D — June 26, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
2.

Quick! Someone get Nancy a stool! She can barely reach the straws she's grasping for!!!!

Comment by Glenn — June 26, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
3.

Is this lady out of her mind? Let the law abiding people of DC have guns, the criminals do.Tipical liberal

Comment by david thompson — June 26, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
4.

To Bela Pelosi, the Constitution might as well be toilet paper.

Comment by Raydog — June 26, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
5.

If she says a state can regulate in this case then I presume she is ok with a state regulating abortion and gay marriage.

Comment by joseph — June 26, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
6.

Let me get this straight… when the 9 unelected lawyers in black robes pass something the liberals like, it's considered set it stone. But when the left doesn't like the decision, they can work around the decision.

Comment by Rob — June 26, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
7.

It's time to remove Pelosi from office. She has led the congress to the lowest rating in years. She is incompetent. She promised to take care of gas prices, under her leadership we see the highest gas prices ever. Under her leadership we see the same corruption and divisievenss as before. And now she basically hours after the Supreme Court gives a decision is trying to alter their opinion.
It's time for this type of leadership to leave.

Comment by Terry Johnson — June 26, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
8.

Rather than give some praise to the reinforcement of our individual freedoms, Pelosi decides to lend her office and stature toward, in spirit, "how can they still get around the ruling."

Comment by Mike Cregan — June 26, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
9.

From the party that brought you "The Supreme Court stole the election from ALGORE!!!", this would be expected. The lefties love the SC when it illegally makes law from the bench that favors their leftist agenda, but when it stands firm for the Constitution - that's another story.

Comment by Bruce — June 26, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
10.

Nancy Pelosi is full of s–t!!!! Ms. Peolosi will be remembered as leader of the do nothing house….or speaker without a brain.

Comment by edwd — June 26, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
11.

I do not believe that this will change the crime stats at all. After all, those people who would commit armed crimes never obeyed the law in the first place. It will simply work nationwide to further the cause of freedom. It will also keep the government honest. The quickest path to the loss of freedom is the loss of the ability to defend it.

Comment by Jack — June 26, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
12.

What a loser. Her commie pals in DC can't stop the guns because the court said it was unconstitutional not to allow American citizens the right to bear arms, but the commie cow still wants to be able to stop us from having guns by any means necessary. She and her cohort Harry Reid, along with Obama are he Rosenberg's of this generation.

Comment by Bo Ridley — June 26, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
13.

This lady is an idiot. This is why its so important to keep the conservative majority on the Supreme court. If the leftists appoint enough liberal justices to shift the balance, we will soon see their opinions erode the constitution. Pelosi's statement foretells the philosophy of the future if we elect Obama.

Comment by Nick — June 26, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
14.

Once Again Pelosi offers the liberal view that the US Constitution does not matter,

Comment by Dennis D — June 26, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
15.

Liberals are the biggest hypocrites.

Comment by Crabby — June 26, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
16.

Mindless blather from the Speaker, again.
The SC ruling in no way overturns laws concerning the carry of a firearm in public.
Ms Pelosi is just another fin eexample of the dishonesty of liberals.

Comment by tankfixer — June 26, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
17.

How does this woman even stay in power? For crying out loud!

Comment by Jack H — June 26, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
18.

Maybe she should worry about San Francisco instead of DC.

Comment by cobray — June 26, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
19.

Good Lord, the woman is a bubble head.

Comment by Lee Cary — June 26, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
20.

Time to get your concealed carry permit Nancy! Lock & load then next time you're in D.C.

Comment by Terminator — June 26, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
21.

SanFran Nan, Oh please…leave us bitter gun clinging, God fearing normal Americans alone and go back Liberal looney land. Oh by the way God bless President Bush.

Comment by Mike Rains — June 26, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
22.

Now we will see and hear the truly venomous side of the anti-gun crowd. No respect for the Supreme Court, nor for the majority of the American people, when the decision does not go their way !

Comment by PPJ — June 26, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
23.

It didn't matter Nancy. You can change the law if you want. We will never allow libs to take our guns.

Comment by bigmarunga — June 26, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
24.

hehehe
Bye, bye Nancy dearest. This makes D.C. residents safer from criminals. Now if we could just find a way to make us all safe from Congress!

Comment by BZeller — June 26, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
25.

Now the crime rate in Washington DC will drop dramtically now that law abiding citizens have been returned their Constitutional right to defend themselves. Nancy Pelosi is your typical left wing socialist the American picked to run this country.

Comment by NAVY SEAL JEFF — June 26, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
26.

Socialist! P for P**** is a dangerous liberal trying to take away loyal American rights.

Comment by Kevin — June 26, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
27.

[…] just darned smart–and good looking too! B) I have ESP or c) The liberals are that predictable The Hill's Blog Briefing Room Pelosi Says D.C. Should Continue Gun Regulation […]

Pingback by Downside to Heller - USA Carry Forums — June 26, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
28.

Nancy Pelosi is so out of touch.

Comment by Uncle Sam — June 26, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
29.

Let her lick her wounds in public. It's nothing but grandstanding. Trying to turn a loss into victory.

All I have say to Nancy is: "Get used to it!"

Comment by Woundlicker — June 26, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
30.

Yet another reason to get rid of all the politicans and start over!

Comment by Big E — June 26, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
31.

Shrieker Pelosi (as usual) hasn't got a clue of what's going on here. The SCOTUS struck down the D.C. ban on handguns because it infringed on the Constitutional rights of the citizens of D.C. as defined in the Second Amendment.

The SCOTUS has spoken on this issue, and the Fentys, Pelosis, and their fellow gun grabbers are now political worm food.

Looks good on 'em.

Comment by Mark Jessup — June 26, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
32.

I am tired of SanFran Nancy! Bush's approval is low but her congress is still lower!

Comment by A. Lendel — June 26, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
33.

At noon today, I saw the DC Mayor's office go on and on about that they still plan on strict gun control, registration, etc., etc. Those SOB's gave NO apology for VIOLATING their citizens Second Amendment rights, and are still going to make it as tough as possible for the law-abiding to own a gun.

They also brought out their lead lawyer (the guy looked like a cross between the mafia and Lurch) who plans to go over the ruling to see how much gun control that they can get away with. What a scum! Well they all are in fact.

Comment by Aaron — June 26, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
34.

Here's a scenario that should scare the hell out of you: Obama is president and 60 members of the Senate are democrats. You think it's bad now, be ready for the socialist society of your nightmares

Comment by k — June 26, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
35.

Keep in mind the desperate attempts the liberals will concoct if a liberal gets elected to the office of the president to change this ruling. Criminals around the country beware, the playing field just became more even. This was the most important supreme court ruling of modern times, if not all times, because it validates the real constitution and protects it.

Comment by 1Texan — June 26, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
36.

Is anyone suprised that our legislators are incapable of properly running this country when the Speaker of the House demonstrates such fundamental stupidity?

Comment by Jeff — June 26, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
37.

what part of "shall not be infringed" does she not understand??

Comment by jj — June 26, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
38.

No let Ms Pelosi and the left wingnuts keep talking just shows what a big idiot the liberals.

Comment by Mike — June 26, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
39.

Then apparently she hasn't read the decision.

Comment by James — June 26, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
40.

Nancy is truely grasping at straws! She has no jurisdictin in DC, and yet refuses to admit her libral filth got the back seat on this one.

Comment by Mark Sullivan — June 26, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
41.

When Marion Barry was elected mayor he said "Get over it white people". Well, get over it liberals (socialist, etc.)

Comment by k — June 26, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
42.

Nancy also thought the D.C. Ban was just fine. She apparently doesn't think along the lines of constitutionality or of the individual people. She's been wrong many times before, and it's about time she realize it and keep her yapper shut.

Comment by Greg — June 26, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
43.

Finally, after years of petty fighting and lawmaking, the District of Columbia and Chicago and The People's Republic of New Jersey, etc. will have to let people have guns. And the crime rates will go down, further.

Comment by Jim Johnson — June 26, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
44.

It's all George Bush's fault.

Comment by bubba — June 26, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
45.

About time the libs got a taste of their own medicine

Comment by Sue Galuga — June 26, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
46.

The great danger of SCOTUS decision is the fact that it was only one vote from throwing out the 2nd ammendment of the Constitution. If dems win in 08, the next appointments to the Supreme Court will be liberal, and then goodbye 2nd ammendment.

Comment by Bill — June 26, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
47.

It's too bad we can't grow as a society. Hopefully the conservatives that support this ruling will become the only victims caused by it.

Comment by Jake — June 26, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
48.

DC should be deemed a "No Farting Zone" to reduce its Carbon Footprint…..

Comment by Harry Jones — June 26, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
49.

Gun laws serve only to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Comment by Bill Bee — June 26, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
50.

I Can't even comment on this - amazing - and extreamly sad at the same time.

Comment by ferg — June 26, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
51.

Give me a break people. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of blaming the court on rulings they don't like and praising them when they do. Just rewind to last week's Guantanamo ruling. Pelosi is right though, Scalia left some room for reasonable restraints on gun ownership.

Comment by M — June 26, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
52.

Will San Fran. stop electing this woman, she is simply a poor excuse for a senator, let alone speaker of the house. Geez. Poor example of an American.

Comment by jojo — June 26, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
53.

OK…DC should allow arms…but go by the second amendment…muskets only.

Tell Ms. Pelosi to grant DC statehood so we can pass such restrictions as a state!

Comment by Bob H. — June 26, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
54.

Nancy Pelosi is a traitor to the American people. Liberals are power hungry control freaks who think they know what is best for you and your children. The only thing the DC handgun ban did was make the citizens more vulnerable to thuggery, ARMED robbery, breaking and entering, and oh yeah…MURDER. I do wish the SCOTUS opinions were more in favor of less regulation. The statements were only good to solidify the current and more regulation - which will be good enough for the libs to manipulate. BEWARE OF THIS FALSE VICTORY.

Comment by Matt — June 26, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
55.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Pelosi forgot to read this little statement in the declartion of independence…either that or she thinks they started a dialogue with the British and worked it all out. How does she think they threw off such government with strong words or with a bullet wound to the head of some tyrants. But like all the democrats she doesn't understand sacrifice and what it took to get it here.

Comment by David Winham — June 26, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
56.

I think the idiots are the people commenting on this board that DO NOT live in DC. I have firearms, live in DC and I can tell you that the fact that I have firearms in no way makes me or my family safer, my neighbors safer, my workplace safer, etc. This city has a problem with gun-related homicides…now we can add a bunch of dead cops to that. Typical hicks from the sticks "shooting" their mouths off.

Comment by Gun Owner IN DC — June 26, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
57.

I have a five year old Granddaughter that is smatter than this woman. What is the IQ of the voters that keep her in office? She is a disgrace to the position of Speaker of the House, but she must be the kind of person the Dems want to lead this nation.

Comment by Rudy Dee — June 26, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
58.

Yea, Nancy Pelosi is real stupid to want to regulate consealed handguns around schools. Most of your rants portray a very grotesque view of the Constitution. The second amendment has never been in danger. I can't wait until we can have an armed tank in every backyard.

Comment by Bill — June 26, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
59.

Wow! The Speaker thinks The court left a lot of room. And that the court will still allow the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive. I wonder if The Speaker has the same feelings and thoughts on some other Supreme Court cases. Like perhaps Rove verses Wade or maybe even prayer in schools. I am guessing not. But leave it to the dems. They see things in the constitution that aren't there and the thing that are there they can't see.

Comment by Radio Active News — June 26, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
60.

It's time we all stand up and show our disgust for the democratic party. If they win, our country is lost, along with our rights that MILLIONS of Americans died for. They are all out for themselves. We are at a turning point in American history. Either we rise up and take our country back, or we will live in peril. It may be time for another civil war.

Comment by CHris — June 26, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
61.

SpeakerPelosi is typical liberal Democrat who ignores specific Constitutional freedoms [right to bear arms] but embraces the nonexistent 'rights' of abortion, sodomy, and gay marriage

Comment by Jack Wilson — June 26, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
62.

This is just one more thing proving that Nancy is a socialist.She is for the total destruction of the U.S.system.She wants equal pay checks for the illegal immergrants,jobless and you.Seems we read this in Marxism years ago.All I can hope for is that the people in Cal. wake up and vote her out next time.
Lloyd

Comment by Lloyd — June 26, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
63.

Pelosi said she was surprised by the justices moving away from precedence. First, what precedence is she talking about? There has never been a case saying we do not a fundamental right to own firearms. Second, its funny how the liberals did not mind the court breaking precedence when they granted rights to terrorists.

Comment by Ben — June 26, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
64.

Keep in mind this is the wretch who said "we are ready to govern" when she took office. Shouldn't that be "ready to serve" instead? Of course she's probably interpret that as "ready to serve special interests."

Comment by RB — June 26, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
65.

Pelosi, read the opinion, yes criminals, felons, mentally unbalanced and school and government buiding safeguards.
liberal misfits like ms nambla child pervert lover pelosi think they can ignore the laws they dont like.
Message to pelosi, the decision was a knockout for libs like you. A district judge and or appeals court will make short work of your gun laws.
This you will love pelosi, your san fran gun law is now as dead as your brain doug collin hallandale fla

Comment by doug collin — June 26, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
66.

Pelosi is pathetic. What was the price of gas when she took office? Pelosi the lowest ranked Speaker in memory. She makes Bush's poll numbers look good.

Comment by Edson — June 26, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
67.

Once again, Pelosi proves she is an Anti-American, Constitution-hating moron.

Comment by Rusty — June 26, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
68.

"So this is how Liberty dies. With thunderous applause."
we the people were just raped.
opinion of the court, page 8.
"The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for use and were not employed in a military capacity."
opinion of the court, page 2 section 2
"like most rights, the second amendment is no unlimited. it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: for example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the amendment"

not employed in a military capacity pistols larger than .22. that means the 1911 and many others like it. semiauto rifles, shotguns and bolt action rifles. just got banned because they are employed in a military capacity.

Comment by mike — June 26, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
69.

She won't be happy until the nanny state becomes a Nancy state

Comment by Dennis — June 26, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
70.

Don't you just love the "grow as a society" comment (#58)? I guess growing as a society also includes wishing ill upon other members of your society.

Or could that have just been a Lib trying to NPR-ize their words in a vain attempt to make themselves sound reasoned and intelligent?

Nah. That can't be it…

Comment by Woundlicker — June 26, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
71.

Nancy 0 The country 1

Comment by Mary Beth — June 26, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
72.

now you can appreciate why the confederate south fought a war to rid themselves of the imperious dictators known to be the united states government.

the only rights you have are the rights they say you have.

Comment by joe bob briggs — June 26, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
73.

[…] the ink was dry, Pelosi made a statement that Washington is still going to be able to regulate gun ownership in D.C. It's amazing how […]

Pingback by Kunefke.US » Second Amendment Defined — June 26, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
74.

Poor Nancy. What is sad is being stupid. What is even sadder, is being stupid and not knowing you are stupid! This woman is just, plain nuts. But make no mistake, she has the power with her cronies in the Democrat party to continue to steal our freedom, our liberty, and our money. The woman may be stupid but she is ever so dangerous!

Comment by Jeff — June 26, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
75.

Just think….4 members of the supreme court tried to amend the constitution w/o congress. Scary. We need more strict constitutional judges else the people lose more rights.

Nancy & company are bad news…..the libs are all crying.

Comment by Sebastian Carta — June 26, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
76.

What I take from the Speakers comments is this. We conservative must fight for every scrap of turf we can. Then be prepared to fight for it again and again. We must look out thirty years ahead by changing who is Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court. We need to change the faces in the media, the teachers unions, acedemia and every liberal power structure found before us. Yes we can.

Comment by Roger Krell — June 26, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
77.

The liberals do love the SC when it dictates with the force of law things they know they can't get passed through Congress. They see the Constitution and its limits as a roadblock to the one party dictatorship they long to impose on us. They are just going to bide their time until they have have a Dem President and both houses of Congress so they can pack the court in their favor too. Once they happens, they can do as they please.

Comment by David — June 26, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
78.

I think Nancy is certainly a San Fransisco Liberal, but all of you who lambaste her are really clueless. Read the decision and understand it before making yourself look like asses.
She's actually correct. Lose the hate speach and educate yourselves people.
I agree with the ruling, it not only keeps handguns available for self defence, it also closes the door on the NRA's slippery slope arguement. The people have a right to bear arms, but the government does reserve the right to limit those rights.

Comment by Jeff — June 26, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
79.

Face it Nancy- it was a bad day for wanna-be Euro socialists and a good day for the Second Amendment.

Comment by Zoo2 — June 26, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
80.

What part of the "Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms" does she not understand? What an idiot!!!

-Bob-

Comment by Bob — June 26, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
81.

Quote: "If she says a state can regulate in this case then I presume she is ok with a state regulating abortion and gay marriage."

GENIUS.

Comment by David — June 26, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
82.

Get ready for more of her and the dems nonsense once they take over in the fall. Even if McCain pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he's such a dem in sheeps clothing that he wont veto much of their garbage that we're in store for. Get ready folks. 8-10 dollar a gallon for gas once they pass their global warming nonsense bills and all kinds of fun coming down the pike. Get ready, cause it's coming.

Comment by Biffula — June 26, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
83.

Of the People, for the people, and by the people… I think Pelosi forgot what government she represents. It amazes me how these elitists loose the perspective of who they represent. God help us from these idiots.

Comment by Mark — June 26, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
84.

Just think… had Al "Massive Carbon Footprint" Gore been elected in 2000… the decision would of been 6-4 against the 2nd Amendment. Thank you Florida. Now I can continue to cling to my guns (multiple) and Bibles (still legal for now) and prepare my family for the O'Bama assault in 2009.

Comment by GunBibleClinger — June 26, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
85.

Our government stinks! Especially the liberal left! Get the government out of our lives. And put Pelosi in a straight jacket.

Comment by Super Nintendo — June 26, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
86.

Reflexive response from the leader of the left - how to work around the Supreme Court decision because of her personal perspective. And we wonder why congress get's nothing done? Clean them out, clean them all out. THis year, vote for my favorite candidate - Anyone new to office.

Comment by Robert Blackwood — June 26, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
87.

Well, hopefully the first regulation DC puts in will be prohibit members of Congress from owning a gun. After all, the Supreme Court decision did say that some regulations, such as limiting firearm ownership by the mentally challenged, are allowed. The majority of Congress falls into this category.

Comment by Mar — June 26, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
88.

The first 10 amendments are the RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS. So why is this moron tactfully disagreeing with the Supreme Court which says YES THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT? It is great to know our so called leaders are against the rights of the people guaranteed to us by the Founding Fathers who helped created this country for THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

Comment by Jason — June 26, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
89.

So Pelosi wants STATE regulation of guns…Will she also be in favor of STATE regulation of abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, etc. I DON'T think so!!! What a pathetic hypocrite.

Comment by Mike — June 26, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
90.

Funny how often the liberals hoot and holler about the Patriot Act taking away people's constitutional rights (and yet not a single liberal I've talked to can give me one example of any of his or her rights that they've lost! LOL)…and yet now Pelosi wants to take away rights that no less than the Supreme Court has said exist under that same Constitution. Bunch of hypocrites!

Comment by timr — June 26, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
91.

If obama was in office. Or gets in office. Give a thought to the kind of judges he would put on the court.Harry , Howard , and Nancy . The three stooges.They will be pulling obamas puppet strings.

Comment by m-antony — June 26, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
92.

You guys are RIGHT! It is a GREAT idea to have every ADD kid with an anger issue with a concealed weapon near a school. did anyone read the decision? it said that a state or city cannot OUTLAW guns, a statement with which I agree, but it also said that they can be regulated reasonably. is that so fricking AWFUL to you people. Do you really LIKE homicidal little gang bangers to carry their weapons around and not be even questioned until they off six people! All pelosi said was that you could be restricted from carrying a gun near a school or that their could be a law about concealed weapons. AND you people went nuts! And please, don't give me the song and dance about self protection in a school. the schools are the safest places on earth, and the kid who carries a weapon for "self protection" is usually the most delusional. we have a lot of truly crazy people in this country who do not YET have a record, and having worked in a group home for "troubled" youth i do not really want them to have a weapon.

Comment by ron orf — June 26, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
93.

So Pelosi wants STATE regulation of guns…Will she also be in favor of STATE regulation of abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, etc.?? I DON'T think so!!! What a pathetic hypocrite.

Comment by Mike — June 26, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
94.

I just wonder what the terms of her MORTGAGE are!?!?!?!?

Comment by C.D. — June 26, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
95.

Pelosi's comments leave little doubt about the facist agenda of the liberal democrats. The court has barely upheld one of the few rights remaining to those who are not members of the political elite. The Obamists and their cronies will continue their attacks upon our freedom.

Comment by John — June 26, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
96.

So what part of "NO" don't you understand, Nancy?? The N, or the O? Did you read the brief even? Where it made it clear that giving citizens the right to own guns was meant to keep onerous government in check? Meaning you work for us?

The impact of this ruling and the language in it has yet to be fully appreciated. The media is trying to poo poo / minimize it, but this is breathtaking in scope.

Comment by Gregg — June 26, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
97.

RTFA!

I know it's REALLY long, but if you read the article, she said, "… CONCEALED weapons and guns NEAR SCHOOLS." The vitriol that immediately spewed forth made most of you look like idiots.

Comment by Scot — June 26, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
98.

Could someone please tell her to go back to baking Italian cookies for her grand kids? Also her old country club is calling for her weekly. They miss her book club meetings and juicy tidbits of Oprah and Ellen.

Comment by Concerned Citizen — June 26, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
99.

I'd like to ask "Gun owner in DC", just how he / she thinks this ruling will add "a bunch of dead cops" to DC? How infantile can you be? You think that the law abbiding who can now own a gun will kill cops that the crimminals won't? How did you live this long being that stupid?

Comment by Joe — June 26, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
100.

To Gun Owner IN DC who said: "I think the idiots are the people commenting on this board that DO NOT live in DC. I have firearms, live in DC and I can tell you that the fact that I have firearms in no way makes me or my family safer, my neighbors safer, my workplace safer, etc. This city has a problem with gun-related homicides…now we can add a bunch of dead cops to that. Typical hicks from the sticks "shooting" their mouths off."

You are a lying sack of crap! If you have firearms, then you have been breaking the law in DC! If you have one, why do you have one, because you haven't the cahones to use it in defense of anything? Instead DC has the highest crime rate in the nation, because of that lack of cahones! And that includes "dead cops" because no one else can stand up and help defend against those who don't give a sh$t about the law….like you!

Oh,I almost forgot.....

 

[tech2101]

State and local challenges will be hard pressed at best.

Its been decided.

The Supremes decided....no argument.

You sound like Nancy Pelosi..

You assume to much dude. I meant that there would be challenges to all the local and state bans and limits on gun ownership. Most will be overturned now that the court has ruled. Look for the limit in Chicago to be first.

Look here

Please show me how I "sound like Nancy Pelosi". You jumped the gun dude.

Did I mention that I agree with the ruling? I am a proud gun owner and hunter. I shoot and hunt on my little 26 acre piece of heaven here in the great state of Texas.