Scotus to hear gun case!
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Scotus to hear gun case!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,098

    Exclamation Scotus to hear gun case!

    Supreme Court Guns Case Preview
    February 28, 2010 - 5:33 PM | by: Lee Ross
    Supreme Court Guns Case Preview Liveshots
    The battle over the meaning of the Second Amendment returns to the Supreme Court Tuesday when the justices hear a case that is a follow-up to their historic ruling in 2008 that individuals have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On Sunday, Fox's Shannon Bream spoke with a couple of key figures in the gun rights debate: lawyer Alan Gura and Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Gura argued and won D.C. v. Heller two years ago and will appear before the Court Tuesday.

    Even though the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, that historic ruling overturning a Washington D.C. gun ban doesn't apply to the 50 states. On Tuesday, the justices will be asked to do just that. The legal term is called "incorporation" but all that means is extending the federal protections of the Bill of Rights--including the Second Amendment--to the states. The case challenges Chicago's restrictive gun law. Dozens of groups have added their voices to the case including the National Rifle Association and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence.

    Gura represents Otis McDonald who is challenging the Chicago law. "Virtually the entire Bill of Rights has been applied against states and local governments. The Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights. It protects a meaningful individual right which is very important to people in this country and throughout American history," Gura said.

    Henigan says the case is Gura's to lose based on the premise that the same five judges who were part of the Heller majority will join together and carry the day in this case. But Henigan emphasizes another part of the Heller decision where he says "the Court implicitly recognized that there is still broad legislative authority to enact reasonable laws to reduce the risk from that right. And we hope the Court gives similar assurances in this case."
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Gray Court, SC
    Posts
    2,934
    I hope this goes as well as the last decision. I think it will because it falls right in line of the DC decision. Slowly one case at a time we are gaining ground on reinstating our true 2A rights!
    USAF Retired, CATM, SC CWP, NH NR CWP, NRA Benefactor
    To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them... -- Richard Henry Lee, 1787

  4. #3
    I too am hoping for a positive ruling.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Should be a no brainer if the constitution is followed.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  6. #5
    I so want to see this country take more steps in the right direction... I am so sick of the moron in chief trying to take our freedom away.
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    Should be a no brainer if the constitution is followed.
    I wish it were that clear, but it is not. To get to a conclusion that the 2nd amendment applies to the states the court either has to ignore some precedent, re-interpret it, or over rule it.

    Moreover, the more conservative justices will need to disregard some of their underlying philosophies to get to that result.

    One or more of the liberal justices may be willing to join with a few of the conservatives because expanding the 2nd amendment to the states would put the last nail in the states right's coffin. Those liberal justices may be willing to give up the 2nd amendment issues to gain on the federal-state relationship issues.

    In any event, the decision will probably not be released until the last week of the term in late June.

  8. A lawyer buddy of mine was just explaining this whole "incorporation" issue to me the other day. It doesn't make much sense to me that certain parts of the Constitution only apply to state laws once a court says so. The argument is that the Bill of Rights only originally limited the power of the federal government, not the government of the respective states. I'm all for states' rights, but you'd think the framers would have realized that a state can infringe upon your rights just as quickly as a nation.

    Furthermore, once the SCOTUS decides that one part of the Constitution applies to the states, what makes the other parts different? Common law is ridiculous sometimes.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaceFrank View Post
    A lawyer buddy of mine was just explaining this whole "incorporation" issue to me the other day. It doesn't make much sense to me that certain parts of the Constitution only apply to state laws once a court says so. The argument is that the Bill of Rights only originally limited the power of the federal government, not the government of the respective states. I'm all for states' rights, but you'd think the framers would have realized that a state can infringe upon your rights just as quickly as a nation.

    Furthermore, once the SCOTUS decides that one part of the Constitution applies to the states, what makes the other parts different? Common law is ridiculous sometimes.
    They did realize that States could infringe on our rights so each state has its own Constitution to guard against that.
    Not only that but Article 4, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution says "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government..." So right there they empowerd the Fed to weild some power over the states.
    I undertand both sides of the argument but I don't think there's any conflict. The Bill of Rights applies to both the Fed and State governments. These were all rights of the People that pre-dated the Constitution, which come from Nature's God, and were so important that the founders wanted to list them and say that they could not be infringed. I actually believe that they are so basic to the freedom of the nation that any subsequent amendment to repeal any of them would be invalid. It would be like making a law that the sky is not blue.
    Avidshooter (Texas)
    "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." -- Plutarch

Similar Threads

  1. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to hear gun rights case
    By lukem in forum Massachusetts Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-21-2011, 10:20 PM
  2. Part 1, Can Gun Control Reduce Crime?
    By gdcleanfun in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-18-2010, 07:37 PM
  3. 2008 Year in Review for Second Amendment Advocates
    By Red Hat in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-03-2009, 06:37 PM
  4. President Barack Obama - A Gun Owner's Worst Nightmare
    By tracker in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-18-2008, 10:35 PM
  5. Obama on Gun Control, McCain on Gun Control
    By tracker in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-22-2008, 11:45 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast