Like Ole we are never really happy are we?

We have gotten into this “fix” in over 200 years of ignorance, apathy and treason in places high and low. However can’t we be “Thankful” once in our lifetimes?

The ruling would probably benefit from having more teeth than the above, but the above would at least make it difficult for the tyrants in DC to get convictions for violations of their unconstitutional anti-gun rules.

BTW, the only thing I think we CAN do about it is refuse to be arrested and if that means shooting back in self-defense then so be it. Olofson’s case proves there is no such thing as a fair federal trial anymore. If you cannot count on the rule of law then its the law of the jungle. Perhaps we should make them understand that if the law no longer protects us, it no longer protects them either.

This decision seemed like a no-brainer to me. If the 2nd Amendment means anything at all, it means that Washington DC can not prevent its citizens from owning guns in their homes no quesitons asked.

Had this decision gone the other way it would mean that the 2nd Amendment is completely meaningless – literally. This is basically the equivalent of the Court declaring unlawful a body cavity search of a 6 year old to recover stolen candy under the 4th Amendment. I relaly don’t know how any of the judges ruled the other way.

Well, it was always a kind of silly notion anyway: such a right can exist only so long as it is unnecessary. It isn’t plausible that you would have a government on the verge of tyranny, which violated every right except that one.

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_06_22-2008_06_28.shtml#1214559656

Strangely, Father Barnett doesn’t mention here that Gary is his son. Either way, the paper is good and timely. So nice job, Gary.

Until now it seemed the Court had to good sense to do so.

This was a good decision, and I’m glad the residents of Washington DC can defend their homes and their families.

Only in their homes, using approved firearms, following the registration+licensing+waiting periods+otherbullshit.

Attacked outside the home? Suck it up
Can’t afford an approved weapon? Suck it up
Are attacked before you’ve jumped through all the hoops? Suck it up
Wish you were a free man left alone to decide what’s best for yourself and your family? Suck it up

And your going to keep paying through the nose for this benevolance. If you don’t, the IRS has guns (of a variety mere citizens aren’t allowed).

#14 Windypundit

Those four judges voted to uphold the laws passed by Congress. I don’t feel good about putting our lives and livelihoods on the hands of hundreds of elected legislators either.

Actually they voted to ignore the rulings of congress last week just like they voted to ignore the 2nd amendment in the Heller case.
I know the courts prefer to do as they please regardless of precedence but to have 4 judges basically ignore very plain and massive sections of our constitution is, to me, more than a little troubling.

Not to say I wouldn’t be doing backflips if the Court had said “Yep, it’s an individual right that shall not be infringed, seems pretty clear to us.” But I’ll take this ruling, because the other option was “No, you don’t have a right to self defense.”

Perfect? No, but as the saying goes, “Perfect is the enemy of the good.” This was a good decision, and I’m glad the residents of Washington DC can defend their homes and their families.