Supreme Court and Guns
- Thread starter K80Geoff
- Start date
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Only to the extent that they'll concentrate all decisions at the Federal based on the Commerce Clause. Not necessarily a good thing.
Rich
Rich
Wildalaska
Moderator
There is going to be, sooner or later, a decision interpreting the 2nd.
I'll tell you what the Court will rule if you want
WildcrystalballAlaska
I'll tell you what the Court will rule if you want
WildcrystalballAlaska
Wildalaska
Moderator
Actually I would submit that under the classic test of constitutionality, many laws would fall:
California AWB
NY AWB
Sullivan Law as applied in NYC
Most of NJs laws
WildandothersAlaska
It's most likely later.........much later.......as the Court has this nasty habit of refusing to hear 2A cases.
That's assuming the justices hearing a 2A case were going to be honest about the original intent of 2A, and not use the "right of states to organize a militia" or "national guard" Brady trash arguement as a standard for the test.
No, I think that the second amendment was written in order to preserve the ability of the people to defeat soldiers, whether they be foreign invaders or soldiers from our own government. It's not about John Kerry's hunting shotgun, and it's not about my concealed Glock either. It applies first and foremost to the kinds of military weapons in common use.
In other words, the most stringently controlled weapons are the ones which should not be regulated at all.
Wander around Washington, DC saying stuff like that and you might just get locked up. You will NOT get appointed to the Supreme Court.
My crystal ball says that one day soon - like sometime in the next 100 years there will be a SC decision on the 2nd amendment. That decision will clearly state that the 2nd amendment protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms and that that right shall not be infringed.
It will go on to say that background checks, registration requirements, taxes on guns, the banning of certain types of arms, prohibitions on carrying in areas where there is a compelling interest to do so, (someone might maybe could get accidentally shot), et al ad nauseum --- are not infringements as they do not prohibit individuals from keeping or bearing arms such as sharpened popsicle sticks.
It will also make it clear that the federal judiciary will not get involved in state gun laws unless said laws ban aforementioned popsicle sticks.
Lastly it will clearly state that any private citizen has legal standing to bring suit against any government entity, (state, local or federal) that violates that individuals 2nd amendment rights, provided that individual can provide proof that they are one of the top five founding fathers of our country as voted on in the latest VH-1 poll - "Our Hottest Founding Fathers."
It will go on to say that background checks, registration requirements, taxes on guns, the banning of certain types of arms, prohibitions on carrying in areas where there is a compelling interest to do so, (someone might maybe could get accidentally shot), et al ad nauseum --- are not infringements as they do not prohibit individuals from keeping or bearing arms such as sharpened popsicle sticks.
It will also make it clear that the federal judiciary will not get involved in state gun laws unless said laws ban aforementioned popsicle sticks.
Lastly it will clearly state that any private citizen has legal standing to bring suit against any government entity, (state, local or federal) that violates that individuals 2nd amendment rights, provided that individual can provide proof that they are one of the top five founding fathers of our country as voted on in the latest VH-1 poll - "Our Hottest Founding Fathers."
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I heard Don Kates say that both pro and anti forces are truly horrified off a real case getting to the SC.
1. A clear loss for either side will be a disaster
2. Both sides have financial interests in letting the current battle continue - if gun laws go away - NRA memership and recruiting takes a big hit.
I also don't expect a conservative court to be a real gun friendly court. GWB conservatives are truly interest in the power of the state and not really concerned with gun rights that weaken such. Don't expect the Fed gov't. not to fight such a decision, even with a 'conservtive' Pres (who liked the AWB).
1. A clear loss for either side will be a disaster
2. Both sides have financial interests in letting the current battle continue - if gun laws go away - NRA memership and recruiting takes a big hit.
I also don't expect a conservative court to be a real gun friendly court. GWB conservatives are truly interest in the power of the state and not really concerned with gun rights that weaken such. Don't expect the Fed gov't. not to fight such a decision, even with a 'conservtive' Pres (who liked the AWB).
The Supreme Court is not for us as gun owners and never will be. Those who make it as judges are typicaly not gun people and have been educated by schools to be against guns. Their peers are against guns and as you see most in government they only want power.
Don't expect anything from them and if something good happens it will be a fluke.
Last night on the presidents speech he talked of how crime was falling in the US. He didn't say it was because more people are carrying guns but it is true anyway. It scares those in government that we have guns and as we all know survival is the most important aspect of life so if they get rid of our guns they feel safer.
25
Don't expect anything from them and if something good happens it will be a fluke.
Last night on the presidents speech he talked of how crime was falling in the US. He didn't say it was because more people are carrying guns but it is true anyway. It scares those in government that we have guns and as we all know survival is the most important aspect of life so if they get rid of our guns they feel safer.
25
Hugh Damright
New member
Most people, when they talk about a "pro Second Amendment court", are really talking about a "pro 14th Amendment Court" ... they want the SCOTUS to incorporate the 2nd under the 14th and federalize the individual RKBA ... which to me is judicial activism ... and although many people seem to want judicial activism, as long as it's their kind of judicial activism ... I believe that we are moving away from that and back towards the Constitution.
mack59, man we all hope ;you are right but fear that your rose colored glasses are a little dusty. Meyer is tipping around on the rigth toes. The only reason it does not come up is because both principals loose. The minute that one principal does not stand to loose we are dead meat. Like some one else said, unfortunately the lawyers who eventually wind up on the courts, SC included, were indocternated at the same time they were educated.
Wildalaska wrote:
Actually I would submit that under the classic test of constitutionality, many laws would fall:
California AWB
NY AWB
Sullivan Law as applied in NYC
Most of NJs laws
I would hope future events prove you to be correct. Having said that, do you seriously expect to ever see the sort of test you speak of, that classic test of constitutionality?
Re a listing of existing laws that would fail, how about legislation such as was enacted in Morton Grove Il some years back?
Actually I would submit that under the classic test of constitutionality, many laws would fall:
California AWB
NY AWB
Sullivan Law as applied in NYC
Most of NJs laws
I would hope future events prove you to be correct. Having said that, do you seriously expect to ever see the sort of test you speak of, that classic test of constitutionality?
Re a listing of existing laws that would fail, how about legislation such as was enacted in Morton Grove Il some years back?
Not necessarily. We could be talking about overturning federal gun laws.
If we have incorporation of the other amendments of the BOR as federally guaranteed protections for individuals against the actions of State governments, it seems to me that excluding the 2nd is the kind of picking and choosing which judges should not be allowed to do. I know you are no fan of the 14th and incorporation doctrine, but if we have it, should it not at least be consistent?
Hugh Damright
New member
Even if we ignore the point that the 14th failed, and pretend that it was properly ratified... I do not believe that the original intent of the 14th was to federalize all rights but rather to address racial discrimination. I do not believe that our modern vision of the 14th is consistent with its original intent.
Well we can really begin to wonder about Alito now.
His first vote is to stay the execution of a convicted murderer of a 15 year old girl, he sided with the 3 "liberals."
Oh well, perhaps with his habit of forgetting he "forgot" which side he was supposed to be on.
Will be interested to see what he does with gun questions.
His first vote is to stay the execution of a convicted murderer of a 15 year old girl, he sided with the 3 "liberals."
Oh well, perhaps with his habit of forgetting he "forgot" which side he was supposed to be on.
Will be interested to see what he does with gun questions.
OK, so it's unratified, unsound, and inconsistent with the structure of our government. I don't fully agree with you, but will concede the point for discussion.
Given that we have this unratified, unsound 14th amendment, and this nutty incorporation doctrine, IF it is going to apply to the rest of the Bill of Rights, WHY should it not also apply to the 2nd?
You seem to wish to use the 2nd as a wedge, with which to pry loose the 14th. I doubt that can be done, even if it should be done. But we may be able to use th 14th to beat back gungrabbing by the States. JMO.