March 2nd has Arrived - Links to What is happening at SCOTUS
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: March 2nd has Arrived - Links to What is happening at SCOTUS

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Elma NY
    Posts
    1,638

    March 2nd has Arrived - Links to What is happening at SCOTUS

    There are Twitters - Blogs - Videos etc
    Anyone find anything?
    Here is what I have so far.
    UPDATE FROM SCOTUS
    About 100 people waited overnight for tickets in bitter cold.

    Twitter Link
    Other Links
    http://pagenine.typepad.com/page_nin...ss-report.html
    and
    FIRST ONE @ ONE FIRST
    Last edited by golocx4; 03-02-2010 at 10:06 AM. Reason: forgot a link

  2.   
  3. #2
    this one too:

    Josh Blackman's Blog

    and transcript of the oral argument should be available tomorrow here:

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...anscripts.html

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Elma NY
    Posts
    1,638
    JOsh's first tweet is scary

    omg. Gura got bammed. No way p or I gets votes.

  5. #4
    From the early reports it sounds like the 2nd is going to get incorporated but with open ended restriction language like that used in the Heller opinion.

    So total bans will be unconstitutional. Will restrictions limiting possession to one's home be allowed? Will bans of firearms on public property be allowed? It is going to take a lot more cases to sort out the details.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Elma NY
    Posts
    1,638

    Court not receptive to “privileges or immunities"

    Correct me if I’m wrong, and I hope I am.
    If the Court was not receptive to the “privileges or immunities”, then can we assume that the Justices believe that the RTKBA is already a "certain unalienable right," and therefore does not need to be argued? In other words, the 14th Amendment recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms for defense of person and property was an essential liberty inherent in all free citizens.
    Or, is the court saying that the privileges or immunities clause for federal-state relations remains as defined by the Slaughterhouse Cases – where the court virtually erased the privileges or immunities clause.

    So now, they will concentrate on due process. They will have to decide that the Bill of Rights applies to the states, through "incorporation," as it is called.
    So they will guarantee that individuals have the ability to challenge states when they violate freedom of speech, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and other Constitutional rights.
    Are we better off, with a decision that the Second Amendment is incorporated? Thus limiting the states through the due process clause, or will it change nothing? Leaving the question open to interpretation by lower courts.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by golocx4 View Post
    Correct me if I’m wrong, and I hope I am.
    If the Court was not receptive to the “privileges or immunities”, then can we assume that the Justices believe that the RTKBA is already a "certain unalienable right," and therefore does not need to be argued? In other words, the 14th Amendment recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms for defense of person and property was an essential liberty inherent in all free citizens.
    Or, is the court saying that the privileges or immunities clause for federal-state relations remains as defined by the Slaughterhouse Cases – where the court virtually erased the privileges or immunities clause.

    So now, they will concentrate on due process. They will have to decide that the Bill of Rights applies to the states, through "incorporation," as it is called.
    So they will guarantee that individuals have the ability to challenge states when they violate freedom of speech, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and other Constitutional rights.
    Are we better off, with a decision that the Second Amendment is incorporated? Thus limiting the states through the due process clause, or will it change nothing? Leaving the question open to interpretation by lower courts.
    I think the court is going to hold that the 2nd applies to the states only because of incorporation through the due process clause of the 14th.

    Absent that holding, earlier cases would still rule and the 2nd would only apply to the Federal government, leaving states the ability to enact total gun bans.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,556
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    I think the court is going to hold that the 2nd applies to the states only because of incorporation through the due process clause of the 14th.

    Absent that holding, earlier cases would still rule and the 2nd would only apply to the Federal government, leaving states the ability to enact total gun bans.
    Would the be a converse to that is as much that individual states could allow firearms or their (state) choice to anyone with out any federal check?

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by CapGun View Post
    Would the be a converse to that is as much that individual states could allow firearms or their (state) choice to anyone with out any federal check?
    probably not - the commerce clause gives the feds almost unlimited jurisdiction when it comes to any type of commercial activity.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    probably not - the commerce clause gives the feds almost unlimited jurisdiction when it comes to any type of commercial activity.
    That's not entirely true. The Constitution states the Fed has the ability to regulate interstate commerce, not intra state. There has not been a test case for a purely intra state item, AFAK. The only recent case I am aware of was for marajuana, where the court ruled the pot in one state is not substantially different from the pot in another to make it intra state. By stamping manufactured and for use in Montana (for example) only should make it beyond the reach of the Feds.
    However, they might say since the raw materials are manufactured in another state, that it is subject to the Fed.
    Not what our Founding Fathers had in mind..........
    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  11. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfling68 View Post
    That's not entirely true. The Constitution states the Fed has the ability to regulate interstate commerce, not intra state. There has not been a test case for a purely intra state item, AFAK. The only recent case I am aware of was for marajuana, where the court ruled the pot in one state is not substantially different from the pot in another to make it intra state. By stamping manufactured and for use in Montana (for example) only should make it beyond the reach of the Feds.
    However, they might say since the raw materials are manufactured in another state, that it is subject to the Fed.
    Not what our Founding Fathers had in mind..........
    The courts can find interstate activity in just about every commercial activity. It would be nearly impossible to establish that no part of the manufacturing process involved interstate commerce. a stamp would be meaningless.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The 2nd amendment march (AKA million shooter march)
    By rockwerks in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 03-02-2010, 04:13 PM
  2. 2nd amendment march 4/19/10
    By moduckdoc in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-28-2010, 08:09 PM
  3. 2nd Amendment March - April 19th
    By Piece Corps in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-12-2010, 02:07 PM
  4. Urgent Action Required
    By Tea For One in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 11:30 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