Really, this woman is the gift that keeps on giving.  Get this.  She says that DC can continue to REGULATE guns.  It is as if she thinks the problem was that unreasonable citizensof the District were complaining about some reasonable "regulation" of guns in the District.  In fact a security guard filed suit against the District for BANNING any and all firearms any where in the entire city!  

Yes, "Blinky."  The District can regulate guns under this decision.  It just can't ban them in total contravention of the 2nd Amendment!  This woman is clueless.  

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

Link found here.

The way Big Commie is railing against this decision one would think our basic constitutional rights have been violated. I caught a bit of coverage earlier, and heard Daly throwing a fit. I believe a NYC politician was on the pulpit as well. It will be interesting to hear the talking points on this.

Well, of course the Marxists are throwing a fit over this! Government lost some element of control over the citizens of this great republic! That cannot be tolerated.

There are a couple of very important points to ponder. I don't know that this decision confirmed all of them and it inserted a point that frankly doesn't hold water. (Maybe I'll remember to note that later.)

Consider these two key points on the issue of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

First, the Constitution does not GRANT any rights to American Citizens. It was drafted to enumerate the powers of the Federal Government with the express intent of the document being to define and LIMIT the powers of that government. The Constitution recognizes that certain rights exist but it does not grant those rights, it simply acknowledges they exist. Our rights are "inalienable" and proceed from the Creator. The majority opinion touched on this point. A big win.

Secondly, the Constitution uses the two words, "The People" and "The States" consistently throughout the document. "The People" always refers to the individual citizens of the nation and "The States" always refers to the constituent state governments. You have to intentionally overlook this to not see it. Go back and read the 2nd Amendment and note which word it uses! The majority opinion clearly stated the right to bear arms belongs to individual citizens! Another big win!

I am sure the Marxists are furious. Somehow their control slipped. I am sure they thought they had "Justice" Kennedy in their pocket. I suspect he won't be going to a lot of cocktail parties this summer.

Justice Kennedy doesn’t give two hoots about the Queen Bee. She can buzz about all she wants. She will make some stinging comments. What can she really do to him? Not much and nothing that would make any difference anyway. It is fun to watch her get herself all up in arms over it.
I believe Justice Kennedy was basing his decision on the popular vote. He also was factoring in that if the 2nd Amendment took another hit it would galvanize a lot of those Democrats who cling to their guns and bibles and might go and vote for John McCain.
If McCain wins the election there might be a chance that a conservative judge or two would make the bench and then Justice Kennedy would no longer remain the focus of the media as the “judge to watch” on every case.

watcher wrote:Justice Kennedy doesn’t give two hoots about the Queen Bee. She can buzz about all she wants. She will make some stinging comments.  What can she really do to him? Not much and nothing that would make any difference anyway.   It is fun to watch her get herself all up in arms over it.
I believe Justice Kennedy was basing his decision on the popular vote. He also was factoring in that if the 2nd Amendment took another hit it would galvanize a lot of those Democrats who cling to their guns and bibles and might go and vote for John McCain.
If McCain wins the election there might be a chance that a conservative judge or two would make the bench and then Justice Kennedy would no longer remain the focus of the media as the “judge to watch” on every case.

I wonder if that is true or not.  I suspect Kennedy has few Republican friends left in Washington, DC so he may spend a lonely summer having "goofed" the 2nd amendment thing.  

I suspect a lot of people could discern Kennedy's motives for deciding a case.  "Clear and original intent" of the constitution certainly does not make the top 100 items influencing him.  As Mark Levin says Kennedy does not appear to have a coherent judicial philosophy.