McDonald for Dummies... - Page 2
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 54

Thread: McDonald for Dummies...

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by AvidshooterTX View Post
    Nope. We need to punish folks for REAL crimes and have truth in sentencing. Anyone who can't be trusted with a firearm can't be trusted with a baseball bat, a kitchen kinfe, an automobile, a chain saw, etc. etc. These individuals need to be locked up in prisons or asylums. There is no such thing as an illegal gun.
    +1 Amen...

    Automobiles kill more people in the U.S. every year than all other weapons combined...

    All other weapons combined kill more people in the U.S. than firearms, every year...

    Gun Control does not reduce crime...
    NRA-ILA :: Guns, Gun Ownership, & RTC at All-Time Highs, Less "Gun Control," and Violent Crime at 30-Year Low

    American Thinker: More Guns, Less Crime in '09

    IF a person is not considered trustworthy enough or competent enough to defend their lives and that of their friends, family etc., using equal or greater force than may be brought against them; anywhere, anytime...
    Then they should not be allowed to be walking the streets without somebody that can & will take 24x7 responsibility for their well-being and personal safety...
    AND since we already know its his not the responsibility of the police or military to be the personal protection of any private individual or group; that is not going to happen...

    IF we don't trust them don't let them out...

    ONE of these days; one or more of these individuals deemed incompetent & or untrustworthy, to defend their lives 24x7 for whatever reason, but allowed to walk the streets, through no fault of their own; are going to lose their life(s), and or members of their family because of it and some lawyer(s) are going to put two & two together; that every sentient being has the inalienable right to self-preservation, and is going to make some family's billions...

    WTFU SHEEPLE!

    Take Back The Republic!

    First Rule of Constitutional Interpretation, your Rights do not come from Government...
    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    A gun is a much more effective weapon than a a baseball bat, a kitchen kinfe, an automobile, a chain saw, etc. etc.

    If we followed your logic, then a state could ban guns because one could just as well use a a baseball bat, a kitchen kinfe, an automobile, a chain saw, etc. etc. for home defense.

    And a gun can be a much more dangerous weapon than a a baseball bat, a kitchen kinfe, an automobile, a chain saw, etc. etc.

    We need to keep guns out of the hands of idiots as well as criminals. The key is finding the proper balance. Those who propose either extreme are the real threat to our freedoms.

    I'm just as much against anarchy as I am against tyranny.
    I have said before: Some people shouldn't have guns. Some people also shouldn't have driver's licenses, or be allowed to vote, or be allowed to procreate! But it's the problem of "Who Gets to Decide" that's important. Nogods, maybe you like a fast car and you want a Porsche. Well the speed limits in America, by and large, are 55mph and below, so you don't need one. Besides, more people are killed in car accidents every year than by guns, so driving fast cars fast is very dangerous...and you shouldn't be allowed to do that. And if the majority of people decided that that was a sensible approach to the highway traffic death problem, that's where we'd be. No one should be in a position to decide what the rest of America should be doing...or not allowed to do...based upon arbitrary rules determined by people with an agenda. Like the Country & Western song says, "Don't 'should' on me and I won't 'should' on you."

    I would also point out that it's precisely because a gun " can be a much more dangerous weapon than a a baseball bat, a kitchen kinfe, an automobile, a chain saw, etc. etc." that it makes such an important and significant DEfensive weapon!
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32° & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    I have said before: Some people shouldn't have guns. Some people also shouldn't have driver's licenses, or be allowed to vote, or be allowed to procreate! But it's the problem of "Who Gets to Decide" that's important. Nogods, maybe you like a fast car and you want a Porsche. Well the speed limits in America, by and large, are 55mph and below, so you don't need one. Besides, more people are killed in car accidents every year than by guns, so driving fast cars fast is very dangerous...and you shouldn't be allowed to do that. And if the majority of people decided that that was a sensible approach to the highway traffic death problem, that's where we'd be. No one should be in a position to decide what the rest of America should be doing...or not allowed to do...based upon arbitrary rules determined by people with an agenda. Like the Country & Western song says, "Don't 'should' on me and I won't 'should' on you."

    I would also point out that it's precisely because a gun " can be a much more dangerous weapon than a a baseball bat, a kitchen kinfe, an automobile, a chain saw, etc. etc." that it makes such an important and significant DEfensive weapon!
    Yes indeed, you simply cannot, MUST NOT Legislate Morality or what any individual or group deems as acceptable Behavior...

    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberties, we have NOTHING...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  5. #14
    Here is an article with one take on the issue. What do you think?

    Partial Gun Rights Victory Could Have Other Implications

    Partial Gun Rights Victory Could Have Other Implications | Print | E-mail
    Written by Alex Newman
    Friday, 05 March 2010 14:00

    Analysts are predicting at least a partial victory for gun rights after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in McDonald v. Chicago, a case about the city’s draconian hand-gun ban that could have major implications for state and local firearm regulations across the nation. But even some supporters of the right to keep and bear arms have been critical of the strategy pursued.

    Attorney Alan Gura, who argued against the ban on behalf of Otis McDonald and others, told the Supreme Court that it should strike down the unconstitutional hand-gun restrictions. He said the Court should force state and municipal governments to respect Second Amendment protections by “incorporating” the right to keep and bear arms using the “privileges or immunities” clause of the 14th Amendment. But this strategy differs from past arguments for incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states in an important way.

    Using just the due process clause of the 14th Amendment would be enough to overturn Chicago’s anti-gun ordinances, argued Gura. But there are other reasons for it as well, he told the justices.

    “In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship,” Gura explained during his opening argument.

    In the past, the Supreme Court has usually relied on the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment to force states to recognize various rights. But for the Court to go along with Gura’s “privileges and immunities” argument, it could have to overturn the landmark “Slaughterhouse-House” rulings that protected a butchering monopoly created by the state of Louisiana and held that the “privileges or immunities” clause affected only rights pertaining to U.S. citizenship.

    "The Privileges or Immunities Clause could be used as a source for judicial activism unlike anything America has ever seen," warned the conservative American Civil Rights Union on its website. The non-profit organization, which filed a brief in support of McDonald, argued that while the Court should incorporate the Second Amendment against the states using the privileges and immunities clause, it should not overturn the Slaughter-House decisions as proposed by Gura.

    But while some conservatives oppose the idea of reversing that historic decision, an informative Washington Times article about the debate entitled "Gun rights lawyer gives hope to liberal causes" noted that some “progressive” groups are joining with Gura in calling for the court to strike down the Slaughter-House ruling.

    "[Progressives] cannot afford to absent themselves simply because the first beneficiary of the demise of Slaughterhouse may be a conservative cause, Second Amendment rights," explained a report from the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal organization which filed a brief in support of Gura’s argument. Critics argue that such a reversal could pave the way for the Court to extend all sorts of “rights” including abortion, healthcare, and gay marriage, and that it would disrupt the proper federal-state relationship.

    Other analysts are crying foul on the move to strike down Chicago’s hand-gun ban for different reasons.

    “The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a list of individual rights, but a list of things the federal government could not do to the states,” explained Jack Hunter in an article entitled "Gunning Down the Constitution" for The American Conservative. “The 2nd amendment does not apply to the Chicago gun ban because the federal government is not involved — nor should it be.” So while the ban may be “ridiculous,” Hunter claims people should oppose the Court striking it down “because this decision would trample the most important right of all — that of the states to limit the power of the federal government.”

    But not so, according to constitutional attorney Edwin Vieira, Jr., who has prevailed in three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    “Both the original Constitution and the Second Amendment made abundantly clear that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms’ applies to every level of government, without exception, throughout the United States,” he wrote in an analysis of the case for The New American entitled "The Second Amendment, The States, and the People": “Indeed, the original Constitution actually required both the General Government and the States, not just to protect, but also affirmatively to promote, that exercise. This is because the original Constitution incorporated within its federal structure ‘the Militia of the several States.’”

    Vieira argues that the even though a legislative solution would be preferable, “even under the Supreme Court’s misconceptions about the 14th Amendment, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms’ should be held applicable to the States.”

    During the hearing, a majority of Justices seemed like they were at least partially swayed by Gura’s arguments. Justice John Paul Stevens, however, was concerned that applying the Second Amendment in full against the states could end up giving people "the right to parade around the streets with guns." Justice Stephen Breyer thought the true issue boiled down to guns versus life. "Here, every case will be on one side guns, on the other side human life," he said.

    But regardless of what the public thinks, the Court is widely expected to incorporate the Second Amendment against the states while allowing “reasonable” restrictions to remain intact. What the definition of “reasonable” might be is still not known.

    There is good news related to gun rights, too, however. While Chicago continues to defend its infringement upon the unalienable rights of its residents, states across the Union are defying federal government regulations by passing state laws nullifying some of those restrictions. Montana, Utah, and Tennessee have all passed versions of the “firearms freedom act” into law, voiding most federal rules against guns manufactured and kept in their respective states. Many other states are working on it as well. And public opinion is solidly in favor of less gun control, not more.

    So while the anticipated Supreme Court decision may represent a partial victory to some, and an unconstitutional infringement on the powers of state governments to others, the future of gun rights in America generally looks brighter than it did just a few years ago. After all, more and more Americans are beginning to appreciate that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable gift from their Creator which “shall not be infringed” by government. And that is encouraging news.
    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

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bonneau & Goose Creek, SC
    Posts
    441

    McDonald is only part 1 of 3

    IMO, there are three parts to 2A: Right to keep arms, right to bear arms, and no infringement.

    Based on Gura's argument of McDonald's 14th Amendment "Due Process" clause, it will prove that gun bans are unconstitutional under Right to Keep. However, it will not resolve the "Right to Bear Arms" or Infringement clause allowing federal, local and state governments to tax, register and deny carry.

    Moreover without more citation to "Equal Protection" clause from the 14th Amendment on top of "Due Process" it will allow the government to segregate and create more elite citizen status. Only the privileged few, govt officials, LEO, FEDs, etc. will have the right to bear arms and no infringement.

    A true test of winning McDonald besides removing local and states bans will been contesting the Gun Control Act of 1968 wrt importation of firearms and the Firearms Owners Protection of 1986 wrt the Hughes Amendment (machine guns).

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    ...
    First of all personally I hate the stinking post Civil-War Re-Construction 14th Amendment, because it was Abe Lincoln's way to make the earlier Amendments ambiguous, including the Second Amendment...
    But I digress...

    If the Supreme court does not incorporate the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment's "Liberties" Clause, meaning your right to protect your life and that of your families, etc., by any means necessary, using equal or greater force than may be brought against you, and they go with the 14th Amendments "Due Process" clause, that pretty much leaves the flood gates open for any governing body to regulate the living ***** out of the Second Amendment to their hearts content, which will mean open season on mandatory firearm/other weapon registration, which in the history of the world has always led to confiscation...

    What they need to do is leave the 14th Amendment out of it, and not convolute things further and continue to muddy the waters as they did in D.C. v. Heller; in my view all they need to do is, reaffirm what the founding fathers already said; the Second Amendment does not create the Right to keep & bear arms/weapons, it protects the preexisting Right, we were all born with...
    Without it, how would any sentient human being be able to protect the most basic, fundamental right of self-preservation?

    Not withstanding; As anticipated Alan Gura got it wrong AGAIN...

    90% of Alan Gura's argument was good, the other 10% is what will haunt us for decades to come...

    Here is two huge gaff's Attorney Alan Gura made in his oral arguments in my view...

    1. JUSTICE KENNEDY: I understood the Chief Justice's question -- maybe I misunderstood it, but my understanding of the question that's important is this. Under incorporation by reference, the States are bound by the rights in all -- with all of the refinements and sophistication with which we interpret them for the Federal Government. It's the same. You don't just apply the core of the right. You apply all of the right as it is elaborated by the cases.
    Is -- is that same consequence -- does that same consequence follow if we adopt the privileges and
    immunities interpretation that you are urging upon us?
    MR. GURA: Yes, Your Honor.

    2. JUSTICE BREYER: You are saying they can have -- no matter what, that the city just can't have guns even if they are saving hundreds of lives, they cannot ban them?
    MR. GURA: The city cannot ban guns that are within the common use as protected by the right to arms.

    Response to #1.: There is that fricking "refinements" & "interpret" b.s. again that appears NOWHERE in the Constitution, Second Amendment or any of the founding documents...
    Just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" does Alan Gura & Justice Breyer not understand? you simply cannot, must not read anymore into the Second Amendment... leave it & us the ******* alone...
    There is nothing more clear in the Founding Documents then "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and it means the same thing today as it did over 200 years ago...
    Don't jack with the inherent, pre-existing, fundamental right to protect ones life by any means necessary, using equal or greater force than may be brought against one; by all enemies foreign or domestic, including but not limited to the tyranny of our own government... As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently delineated in the Declaration of Independence...

    Response to #2.: There is that fricking "COMMON USE" b.s. again which appears NOWHERE in the Constitution, Second Amendment or any of the founding documents...
    That is used to infringe upon any type of weapon they have legislated and or taxed into UNCOMMON USE...
    What happens in 50 or 100 years when we are using laser weapons or whatever high-tech weaponry the future brings us, and they become all the rage...
    Do the weapons we now enjoy because they are in common use; become bannable?
    Under his argument they do...

    How long are WE THE PEOPLE going to allow these jokeuses to continue make ***** up?

    The Oral Arguments...
    http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/McDonaldvChicagooral.pdf

    WTFU SHEEPLE!

    Take back the Republic!

    FYI: Read this related, ongoing thread here at USACARRY for further detail...
    New Supreme Court cases could affect State 2a laws

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. #17
    I asked more or less the same question HERE. I personally believe it should stand to follow that the slate is wiped clean and we revert back to the ONE ORIGINAL gun law: The Second Amendment. Obviously that wouldn't be the result of a McDonald win. Basically, it opens the floodgates for thousands of lawsuits challenging each individual gun law, one by one.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chandler
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    First & Foremost we need to tell the guys at the NRA & SAF and others to stop sending Alan Gura to SCOTUS to defend the Second Amendment, because in my view; with help like his we may as well bend over & grab some sand...
    Send somebody like Stewart Rhodes up there, whom won't concede anything as a acceptable Second Amendment infringement...
    Oath Keepers Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic
    Alan Gura is hopelessly fixated on presenting the case based on the "rights and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. This didn't sit well with many of the Justices including Scalia who is usually deemed as being pro-Second Amendment. Thankfully, Paul Clement ,of the NRA (which was granted "Cert"), was clearly presenting arguments based primarily on the settled "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment. This was obviously what most Justices wanted to hear but Gura seemed relatively oblivious to the clear signals that he was given by Scalia and others that a "rights and immunities" argument had too many traps and pitfalls to be likely to succeed. In any event, Clement probably saved the day as far as oral arguments are concerned. In the final analysis, the multitude of written briefs will undoubtedly carry more weight than the oral arguments. I think that we will probably win but like many others...I foresee many "strings" being attached to the decision.
    MOLON LABE

  10. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by gvaldeg1 View Post
    Alan Gura is hopelessly fixated on presenting the case based on the "rights and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. This didn't sit well with many of the Justices including Scalia who is usually deemed as being pro-Second Amendment. Thankfully, Paul Clement ,of the NRA (which was granted "Cert"), was clearly presenting arguments based primarily on the settled "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment. This was obviously what most Justices wanted to hear but Gura seemed relatively oblivious to the clear signals that he was given by Scalia and others that a "rights and immunities" argument had too many traps and pitfalls to be likely to succeed. In any event, Clement probably saved the day as far as oral arguments are concerned. In the final analysis, the multitude of written briefs will undoubtedly carry more weight than the oral arguments. I think that we will probably win but like many others...I foresee many "strings" being attached to the decision.
    I think Clement & Gura were pretty much making the same argument...
    Although, stating it in a different way...

    I like Alan Gura's "privileges and immunities clause" approach and I like Paul Clement's "Liberties Clause" approach...
    As I mentioned previously, I am furious that Alan Gura, qualified weapons in "Common Use" protected by the Second Amendment, that will be a pivotal piece if SCOTUS includes it in their Opinion, as it will leave the future flood gates open, when today's handguns are no longer in "common use"...

    There is no attrition clause/common use clause in the Constitution...

    Cannons were never in common use by farmers (WE THE PEOPLE) but we started the Revolution War over its ban by the British...

    Cannons were never in common use by farmers (WE THE PEOPLE) but we fought & died at the Alamo over its ban by General Santa Anna...

    Isn't it interesting that we can still own a functioning cannon but not a rocket launcher?

    Isn't it interesting that we can still own a gatling gun, but not a machine gun...

    Isn't it interesting that we can still own a baseball bat or a night stick, or a brick/2x4/broken bottle but not Nunchaku's in many states?

    E.G.: Consider the following snippets of the two attorneys favoring 14th Amendment incorporation that were allowed to speak...

    ORAL ARGUMENT OF ALAN GURA ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS MR. GURA: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
    Although Chicago's ordinances cannot survive the faithful application of due process doctrines, there is an even simpler, more essential reason for reversing the lower court's judgment. The Constitution's plain text, as understood by the people that ratified it, mandates this result.
    In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship.
    The rights so guaranteed were not trivial. The Civil War was not fought because States were attacking people on the high seas or blocking access to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. The rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment were understood to include the fundamental rights honored by any free government and the personal guarantees of the... (Government/Constitution/Second Amendment? subject in question). Cut off by Chief Justice Roberts...

    ...

    Alan Gura to... Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional... (by using due process)

    ...

    JUSTICE GINSBURG: (to Alan Gura) Are you saying that the rights -- if you could clarify your conception of privileges and immunities. Am I right in thinking that to keep and bear arms would be included even if we had no Second Amendment, as you envision privileges and immunities?
    MR. GURA: Justice Ginsburg, that is correct. The framers and the public understood the term... Cut off by Justice Ginsburg...

    ...

    MR. GURA: (to) Justice Scalia, we would be extremely happy if the Court reverses the lower court based on the substantive due process theory that we argued in the Seventh Circuit. And indeed, had the Seventh Circuit accepted our substantive due process theory, which was our primary theory in the court below, we might not be here, or perhaps we would be here in a different posture...

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: (to James Feldman) ... all people, most people in the United States, the public meaning of the Second Amendment was that there was an individual right to bear arms, and that's because it was fundamental. If it's not fundamental, then Heller is wrong, it seems to me...

    ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAUL D. CLEMENT
    ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NATIONAL RIFLE
    ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.,
    IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
    MR. CLEMENT: Mr. Chief Justice and may it
    please the Court:
    Under this court's existing jurisprudence, the case for incorporating the Second Amendment through the Due Process Clause is remarkably straightforward. The Second Amendment, like the First and the Fourth, protects a fundamental preexisting right that is guaranteed to the people... (By the Second Amendment/Government/Constitution? subject in question). Cut off by Justice Stevens...

    I like the 2nd sentence "The Second Amendment, like the First and the Fourth, protects a fundamental preexisting right that is guaranteed to the people" but Clement makes it ambiguous with his 1st sentence referencing a "due process" exception...

    There is other applicable examples in the oral arguments by all attorneys and the justices, but I think the majority consensuses of those present is that the Second Amendment is a Fundamental, Preexisting right guaranteed to at least the people of the United States, regardless of citizenship...
    AND IF they incorporate it into the 14th Amendment they should set precedent by incorporating it under "privileges or immunities" which I feel would have the effect of saying No State can ban any weapon period; D.C. v. Heller already gives them the ability to regulate; whereas, I think IF they go the due process route which Clement appeared to infer he supported then the states can do what they are doing now and bans will be allowed, at the discretion of the States and other municipalities, and it will have a net effect of making D.C. v. Heller moot...

    Another likely scenario is they really muddy the waters and incorporate in part using both clauses...
    Effectively saying yes you have a fundamental right, that the State or Fed can arbitrate how you exercise that right...

    Let me try to be more clear...
    The 14th Amendments "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" is Attorney Speak for supporting the concept of the Constitution being a living document...
    Meaning it can change whenever the political powers that be change majorities or positions, which in my view was clearly not the intent of the founding fathers...

    14th Amendment Section one is the only section before the court...
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...

    5th Amendment...
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    See the intentional redundancy & ambiguity of the 14th Amendment when you look at the first 10 Bill of Rights?

    Attorney Abe Lincoln infringed the constitution more than anybody else in U.S. History to-date, Attorney Barack Obama is catching up fast...
    What do these to gentlemen have in common?
    Besides being Attorneys from Illinois; They were both great orators loved by the people and history (at least with Lincoln), for nothing more then their ability to speak well and mislead and misrepresent things...

    Abe Lincoln & Andrew Johnson after him were onto to the limits and the chains the constitution put on the Fed, which were eliminated almost entirely with the ambiguity of the 14th Amendment...

    In one stroke, the power of the people being 1st, the State being 2nd, and the Fed being 3rd was turned upside down, and now WE THE PEOPLE are at the bottom, State is 2nd and Fed is 1st...

    The Oral Arguments...
    http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/McDonaldvChicagooral.pdf

    My sincere hope as I previously stated is that the court does not incorporate the 2nd Amendment under the 14th in any way shape or form; but simply reaffirms that it is a fundamental, preexisting right, and that any ban of any type/class of weapon (machine-guns, nunchaku's, etc); additionally, any regulation that makes said ownership cost-prohibitive is unconstitutional...
    Effectively acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment can stand on its own, and that you cannot read anymore into "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" ...

    WTFU SHEEPLE!

    Take back the Republic!

    FYI: Read this related, ongoing thread here at USACARRY for further detail...
    New Supreme Court cases could affect State 2a laws

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  11. #20
    The anticipated favorable decision in Mcdonald may not be the slam dunk we were expecting:

    History reveals a long-standing local authority to regulate guns. Shouldn't that matter?

    Here is the executive summary of the article:

    The problem for Scalia, and for those who want to expand gun rights and also stay faithful to the history and text of the Constitution, is that this view cannot be reconciled with the history of the 14th Amendment. In the years before and after the adoption of the amendment, numerous states and cities—motivated by the danger posed as firearms and other deadly weapons became smaller—enacted laws banning the carrying and possession of certain dangerous weapons, including handguns. In other words, there is ample historical evidence showing that at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, states had broad authority to enact nondiscriminatory gun-safety regulations.

    As John Bingham, the leading drafter of the 14th Amendment, wrote in an 1867 speech, the new Amendment "would maintain intact the powers of the national government and State governments—the one for general defense and protection, the other for local administration and personal security." The 14th Amendment prevented states from discriminating against the rights of certain classes of people, but states could (and did) continue to enact neutral laws banning classes of weapons. Although Justice Scalia did not appear to be interested in this history, there's no reason the rest of the court can't become Originalists this time around.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New Supreme Court cases could affect State 2a laws
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-05-2010, 12:19 AM
  2. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion For Divided Argument In McDonald v. City of Chicago
    By lukem in forum Illinois Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-12-2010, 02:27 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-06-2010, 12:25 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