Article III Section 2 of the Constitution reads:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Well guess what --- this section of the Constution is no longer followed.  Congress and the courts have ordained  dual original jurisdiction.   Your case goes to Federal District Court, not the Supreme Court.

The  Constitution iteself does not give  Federal District Courts the ability to review the constitutionality of laws.  The Constitution also does not vest habeus corpus review in Federal District Courts to the exclusion of Military Tribunals.  But yet some judges see it that way.

So don't expect miracles. The Constitution is a living breathing document.

Seems to me, that someone in LA would be infavor of unrestricted gun rights. Every street punk has one, an illegal one. But their prejudice keeps seeping through, each and every article they write.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Can you imagine a story wondering whether free speech rights are truly protected by the Constitution?

So the Constitution is uselesss until the Supreme Court rules on it?

Still doing everything possible to "evolve" the constitution, the progressives of a bygone era still live.  This is what Rush means when he says that the libs have to be defeated (politically), utterly and completely, and is the problem with McCain, whose hero he stated is Teddy Roosevelt.  TR was a Republican, but he was a Progressive Republican, with a big capital "P", and all that that stands for.  The foundational thinking he used for his policy initiatives was almost lock step with the philosophies that formed Wilson.  And the idiots in the press, including FNC still can't figure out what "conservatives" (the true traditional liberals) dislike about the man, heroic war service or not. 

"...then the Constitution must evolve or be thrown into the dustbin of history.  Wilson's writings are chock-ablock with demands that the 'artificial' barriers established in our 'antiquated' eighteenth-centrury system of checks and balances be smashed.  He mocked the 'Fourth of July sentiments' of those who still invoked the founding fathers as a source for constitutional guidance...Indeed, the ink from Wilson's pen regularly exudes the odor of what we today call the living Constitution...Hence 'all that progressives ask or desire is permission-in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word-to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle.'  As we've seen, this interpretation leads to a system where the Constitution means whatever the reigning interpreters of 'evolution' say it means."     From Liberal Fascism, p.88, ch. 3, "Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of Liberal Fascism", by Jonah Goldberg 

Interpreting the second amendment to progressive standards is a dream shared by all the libs.  Just another step in the state's quest to put us all on the Road to Serfdom (nod to Hayek).

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com

I guess Savage thinks that the importance of each right is based upon their order of appearance in the Constitution. That means the fourth and fifth amendments are less important than the second or third.

As always ..do people actually think that they just jotted down the bill of rights without any regard to order ? the 2nd comes after the first for a reason.

hard for tyranny to thrive if the populace has means to unshackle itself. our founding fathers had first hand experience in this matter.

The Second is NOT about duck hunting 

Is the right to own and carry a gun a fundamental right that cannot be infringed by the government, except in special situations? Few would argue that gun owners have a right to carry firearms onto airplanes, or into the Supreme Court building.

Americans would be troubled by the idea of the government licensing people to be allowed write or publish books or to preach in churches, said David B. Kopel, a lawyer from Colorado. Because of the 1st Amendment and its protection for free speech and religious freedom, that sort of government regulation would be struck down as unconstitutional, he said.

Yes, it was a fairly balanced article but with a false dichotomy.  The issue is not whether a jurisdiction has the right to regulate the use of guns, it is whether the jurisdiction can regulate it to the point of making the ownership of the gun pointless which is de facto an abolishion of the right of gun ownership. You can own a car, but if the State "arbitarily" refuses to issue a drivers license they have denied you the use of the car and that would be unconstitutional.  Both free speech and religion are also regulated! You can't yell fire in a movie theater when it doesn't exist. Therefore free speech is regulated against abuse just like liable and slander.  You can't scarifice people on an alter or have 3 wives, so therefore religion is also regulated against abuse by what you are not allowed to do. 

The point of any law is to punish the abusers of freedoms, it in no way ever protects the public from the abuse.  Just because you outlaw a behavior or activity doesn't mean it ceases to be, it only means government has the authority to punish the abuse of that behavior.  Claiming the law protects the public is like claiming life insurance protects the insured.  It doesn't.  The law like insurance is a mandated response to a certain situation.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

I bet the Tibetan Monks wished they did a little less chanting and little more gun hoarding right about now.

It doesn't matter what SCOTUS decides. We know what it means because we're the People.