<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: i never would have guessed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2008/06/i_never_would_have_guessed.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2008/06/i_never_would_have_guessed.html</link>
	<description>defending our rights from the ramparts</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:29:49 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Linoge</title>
		<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2008/06/i_never_would_have_guessed.html/comment-page-1#comment-766</link>
		<dc:creator>Linoge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:23:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wallsofthecity.net/?p=576#comment-766</guid>
		<description>Ok, Mr. Nelson, so I admit that my knowledge of jurisprudence is a little limited, but how much weight does a dissent opinion carry in the case itself, and in future applications of the case?  I mean, it is pretty much the decision itself that matters, is it not?  The dissents are just opinions as to why the other justices did not agree with the deciding five, and I guess I thought that dissents did not really carry any legal weight, just were a method of venting basically.  I guess I was wrong?
Of course, Scalia coming out and saying that himself is something of a different problem.
I do agree that there are more than a few things overlooked if the Supreme Court does try and limit the Second Amendment to &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; the federal government - if nothing else, D.C., while being quite the oddity, is not an entity of the federal government (at least as I understand its peculiar predicament), and simultaneously is not a state...  And yet the Second Amendment obviously now applies to it.
Honestly, not being a Constitutional scholar, or even a lawyer, I have no idea.  However, we are obviously going to have a few methods of testing the waters with Chicago and San Fransico...  I would, however, be amused to no end if both of those ended up back on the Supreme Court&#039;s bench.
Right there with you Rosemary...  I remember taking a vacation down to the Outer Banks when I was a child, and seeing all of the multi-million dollar homes down there.  I asked how they could survive the hurricanes, and I was told they did not really... then I asked how they were rebuilt every year, and you can imagine the answer.  Self-reliance is more and more a thing of the past, and that, alone is turning out to be a significant factor in why America is the way it is today.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, Mr. Nelson, so I admit that my knowledge of jurisprudence is a little limited, but how much weight does a dissent opinion carry in the case itself, and in future applications of the case?  I mean, it is pretty much the decision itself that matters, is it not?  The dissents are just opinions as to why the other justices did not agree with the deciding five, and I guess I thought that dissents did not really carry any legal weight, just were a method of venting basically.  I guess I was wrong?<br />
Of course, Scalia coming out and saying that himself is something of a different problem.<br />
I do agree that there are more than a few things overlooked if the Supreme Court does try and limit the Second Amendment to <em>only</em> the federal government &#8211; if nothing else, D.C., while being quite the oddity, is not an entity of the federal government (at least as I understand its peculiar predicament), and simultaneously is not a state&#8230;  And yet the Second Amendment obviously now applies to it.<br />
Honestly, not being a Constitutional scholar, or even a lawyer, I have no idea.  However, we are obviously going to have a few methods of testing the waters with Chicago and San Fransico&#8230;  I would, however, be amused to no end if both of those ended up back on the Supreme Court&#8217;s bench.<br />
Right there with you Rosemary&#8230;  I remember taking a vacation down to the Outer Banks when I was a child, and seeing all of the multi-million dollar homes down there.  I asked how they could survive the hurricanes, and I was told they did not really&#8230; then I asked how they were rebuilt every year, and you can imagine the answer.  Self-reliance is more and more a thing of the past, and that, alone is turning out to be a significant factor in why America is the way it is today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rosemary</title>
		<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2008/06/i_never_would_have_guessed.html/comment-page-1#comment-765</link>
		<dc:creator>Rosemary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 03:13:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wallsofthecity.net/?p=576#comment-765</guid>
		<description>You keep those eyes a starrying! I remember hearing about one lady whose house burned down in a fire, and congress wanted to help her build it again. The president (forget which one) could find no place in the Constitution to allow such an expense of other people&#039;s money! It was vetoed, but now we have FEMA everytime it sprinkles or people live in a place where they cannot get insurance because it&#039;s too dangerous to live there. You would THINK that would be a hint, but hey! Don&#039;t worry! Here comes big brother...*sigh*
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You keep those eyes a starrying! I remember hearing about one lady whose house burned down in a fire, and congress wanted to help her build it again. The president (forget which one) could find no place in the Constitution to allow such an expense of other people&#8217;s money! It was vetoed, but now we have FEMA everytime it sprinkles or people live in a place where they cannot get insurance because it&#8217;s too dangerous to live there. You would THINK that would be a hint, but hey! Don&#8217;t worry! Here comes big brother&#8230;*sigh*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rosemary's News and Ideas</title>
		<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2008/06/i_never_would_have_guessed.html/comment-page-1#comment-767</link>
		<dc:creator>Rosemary's News and Ideas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 03:09:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wallsofthecity.net/?p=576#comment-767</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Great Reading&lt;/strong&gt;

My friend has written another wonderful post with videos and links included. He named it: Quick Update, but don</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Great Reading</strong></p>
<p>My friend has written another wonderful post with videos and links included. He named it: Quick Update, but don</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Perri Nelson</title>
		<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2008/06/i_never_would_have_guessed.html/comment-page-1#comment-764</link>
		<dc:creator>Perri Nelson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:11:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wallsofthecity.net/?p=576#comment-764</guid>
		<description>The court&#039;s ruling was interesting to say the least. The sad thing is, it only appears to apply to the District of Columbia and other federal enclaves. In Justice Steven&#039;s dissent, he quotes from &quot;Presser v. Illinois&quot;...&lt;blockquote&gt;the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.&lt;/blockquote&gt;While that&#039;s brought up in the dissent, Justice Scalia in the court&#039;s opinion notes in a footnote on page 48...
&lt;blockquote&gt;Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252,
265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed
that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.&lt;/blockquote&gt;I think we&#039;ve got a ways to go yet before our second amendments rights are fully protected by the court. Especially when an opinion that relies so heavily upon the ordinary meaning of the words of the amendment overlooks the plain words of Article 6, section 1, paragraph 2 of the Constitution...
&lt;blockquote&gt;This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.&lt;/blockquote&gt;Unlike the first amendment, that the courts have said is &quot;incorporated&quot; by the fourteenth amendment into applying to the states and local governments, the second amendment makes no mention of Congress.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The court&#8217;s ruling was interesting to say the least. The sad thing is, it only appears to apply to the District of Columbia and other federal enclaves. In Justice Steven&#8217;s dissent, he quotes from &#8220;Presser v. Illinois&#8221;&#8230;<br />
<blockquote>the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.</p></blockquote>
<p>While that&#8217;s brought up in the dissent, Justice Scalia in the court&#8217;s opinion notes in a footnote on page 48&#8230;</p>
<blockquote><p>Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252,<br />
265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed<br />
that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.</p></blockquote>
<p>I think we&#8217;ve got a ways to go yet before our second amendments rights are fully protected by the court. Especially when an opinion that relies so heavily upon the ordinary meaning of the words of the amendment overlooks the plain words of Article 6, section 1, paragraph 2 of the Constitution&#8230;</p>
<blockquote><p>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.</p></blockquote>
<p>Unlike the first amendment, that the courts have said is &#8220;incorporated&#8221; by the fourteenth amendment into applying to the states and local governments, the second amendment makes no mention of Congress.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
