In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Supremes taking 2nd Am Case
MBK
Member Posts: 2,918 ✭✭✭
c&p:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Wednesday it would decide whether the constitutional right of individuals to own guns takes precedence over state and local laws, reviving the legal battle over gun rights in America.
The nation's high court agreed to decide the reach of its landmark ruling last year that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed an individual right to own guns and use them for lawful purposes like self-defense in the home.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Wednesday it would decide whether the constitutional right of individuals to own guns takes precedence over state and local laws, reviving the legal battle over gun rights in America.
The nation's high court agreed to decide the reach of its landmark ruling last year that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed an individual right to own guns and use them for lawful purposes like self-defense in the home.
Comments
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-na-supreme-court-guns1-2009oct01,0,5218883.story
This will be interesting, particularly with the current make up of the court. As with Heller, Kennedy will be making the final decision, and there is a huge potential problem if the court sides against Chicago, but waters down the wording in the same manner it did in Heller.
We are all aware of the definition of 'infringed', and we should all be equally aware that in Heller, SCOTUS defined it as 'denied'.
This case will obviously have a much wider scope as it specifically deals with the incorporation of the 2nd. A limp-wristed decision in McDonald's favor may not be a hell of a lot better than a decision in Chicago's favor for the following reasons:
Heller confirmed that the District of Columbia has the power to license gun owners, register weapons, and regulate what type of weapons said gun owners can own. At present, State Constitutions vary widely, and most set guidelines on the restrictions that localities can impose. A decision that grants the City of Chicago the power to impose any number of restrictions short of an outright ban, will effectively grant State and Local governments the power to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment in any manner they choose, short of an outright ban on all weapons.
All 2nd Amendment arguments are coached in the language of hunting, the shooting sports, and self defense against criminals. Heller confirmed this, even citing 'self defense in the home' a number of times. What is being deliberately removed from the discussion is that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee to the people, the ability to combat the forces of a tyrannical government, foreign or domestic.
Any wording that empowers government at any level to license, register and regulate removes that guarantee.
Brad Steele
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said he hopes the court rules that "core fundamental freedoms like speech, religion and, we believe, the right to keep and bear arms are intended to apply to every individual in the country."
Don, How would you like to see this ruling come down? Here's the way your buddy Wayne LaPierre would like to see it:
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said he hopes the court rules that "core fundamental freedoms like speech, religion and, we believe, the right to keep and bear arms are intended to apply to every individual in the country."
[B)][B)][B)] Yeah right sure he does. I waiting for the BUT.....
While we might celebrate a victory now with a ruling that seems to grant us the right to self defense, hunting, target shooting,... Our children will be fighting more and more regulation based upon an interpretation that is being codified now and used later to justify tyranny by rulers posing as government.
Don, How would you like to see this ruling come down? Here's the way your buddy Wayne LaPierre would like to see it:
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said he hopes the court rules that "core fundamental freedoms like speech, religion and, we believe, the right to keep and bear arms are intended to apply to every individual in the country."
Bill:
I see this ruling coming down pretty much like the Heller ruling.
I see no reason for the Robert's Court to take the case if the intention is not to decide in McDonald's favor. I also believe that the decision will confirm that the 2nd Amendment is finally to be incorporated on the states, confirming the RTKBA to all citizens.
I also suspect that is going the be the end of the good news.
A proper decision would obviously be that as the right is guaranteed to 'the people', there should and can be no local or state restrictions or impediments to the purchasing, keeping and general carrying of firearms. We know this will not happen.
IMO, the our best hope is a decision that confirms that municipalities or states cannot institute any type or location bans on commercially available firearms. Meaning that California can no longer ban high cap magazines, Chicago cannot ban handguns, and Chicago cannot ban handguns in certain neighborhoods. This would be a step in the right direction, as it would remove the 'regulation' provided for in Heller. Our best hope is, however, unlikely to be realized.
It is impossible to imagine that the court would force the lifting of licensing and registration requirements currently in place in many states and cities, and it is hard to imagine that it would force the lifting of the .50 caliber ban in CA, for example. It is impossible to see a decision that eliminates form 4473, and with that, all local and state equivalents will have to be allowed. These are impossible hopes, of course, because as stated in Heller, the Robert's Court invokes the 2nd Amendment as a tool for self-defense for individuals against individuals.
One almost hopes for a six word decision: 'We find in favor of McDonald.' but that is a political impossibility.
If the decision points out, like was done in Heller, that Chicago has numerous options to license, register and regulate self-defense weapons for use in an individual own home, the political battle for the 2nd Amendment is as good as dead. Meaning, of course, that the court will have incorporated the 2nd Amendment on the states, but in doing so will have changed the entire meaning of that Amendment and will have destroyed its true purpose.
Not to be crass, but the 2nd Amendment exists to guarantee to the private citizen the capability of putting a bullet in the brain-pan of an officer of the court or an agent of the government that is attempting to unconstitutionally infringe upon his liberty and freedom. I do not believe that even the 'strict constructionists' on the court believe in freedom to that extent. Not that it matters, but Mr. Perri?r does not believe in freedom to that extent either.
Brad Steele
Yeah, the court will no doubt rule that the 2nd applies to the states, but that they can tax, regulate, register, and license firearms ownership to whatever extent they desire, creating the same effect as a ban in the usual states.
Which are all infringements as it makes it difficult to impossible for many to "exercise" a right. All 3 branches need pruned.
Yeah, the court will no doubt rule that the 2nd applies to the states, but that they can tax, regulate, register, and license firearms ownership to whatever extent they desire, creating the same effect as a ban in the usual states.
The Heller decision (which made many of these stipulations), was a political compromise within the Court, I believe. I have a hunch that Kennedy said something like, "If you rule that the 2nd amendment bans ANY restrictions, Federal, State, city, or in DC, then I'll have to vote against it, and the final decision will be 5-4 AGAINST overturning DC's handgun ban. But if you put in language saying that some restrictions are OK, then I'll vote to overturn the ban, and the final outcome will be 5-4 FOR overturning the ban. What's it going to be?"
And so Scalia's "opinion" came out the way it did.
What are the chances the same thing will happen again? The cases are very similar, except for DC not being in the jurisdiction of any state.
If the final decision is a short one saying only that "The 2nd amendment's restrictions on infringing on the RKBA, apply to state and local governments as well as to the Fed. The 2nd amendment is now incorporated. Chicago's handgun ban is overturned." Then what will be the impact on FUTURE gun-rights cases?
For example, if the Chicago decision goes that way, and then a few years from now somebody challenges New York City's almost-total ban on handguns and the case goes to the Supremes, what difference will this "incorporating" Chicago decision make to the later NYC decision?
We had better hope and pray that Obama doesn't get the opertunity to put any more justices on the supreme court. If that happens, I can tell you what the outcome would be.
Yup ;
You will dutifully run down and turn in your weapons.
Then, a few years later, after better men have warred and won their independence yet again over tyranny, you will beat your chest and tell any that will listen how 'you fought the war for independence'.
quote:
We had better hope and pray that Obama doesn't get the opertunity to put any more justices on the supreme court. If that happens, I can tell you what the outcome would be.
Yup ;
You will dutifully run down and turn in your weapons.
Then, a few years later, after better men have warred and won their independence yet again over tyranny, you will beat your chest and tell any that will listen how 'you fought the war for independence'.
Sad, but true.
quote:
We had better hope and pray that Obama doesn't get the opertunity to put any more justices on the supreme court. If that happens, I can tell you what the outcome would be.
Yup ;
You will dutifully run down and turn in your weapons.
Then, a few years later, after better men have warred and won their independence yet again over tyranny, you will beat your chest and tell any that will listen how 'you fought the war for independence'.
+1[V]