Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gun Control

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gun Control

    What does the second Amendment actually say about your right to bear arms?? You may be about to find out. The supreme court is currently considering a case about whether Washington DC can ban guns or not. I think this will be the first second amendment case since the thirties.

    A little legal background. The framers did not intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to state law, only federal. So all these rights that we see as guaranteed by the constitution were actually not set up to be that way. The States in law making were not bound by the federal constitution, only state constitutions. However, over the years through the doctrine of "incorporation" the Supreme court has "Incorporated" most of the Bill of Rights to bind state law as well as federal law. Most of the amendments have by now been Incorporated, EXCEPT the second Amendment. It has not. So it will be interesting to see if the court "Incorporates" it now, or leaves it alone. In which case that would mean DC should be free to ban guns, unless they view DC as falling under federal law only because it is not a state. There are plenty of legal tricks they could use to not address the constitutional issue in this case.

    If I had to guess I would say they will avoid the issue of incorporation and only deal with the DC specific situation so as not to address constitutional issues. But that is a guess.

    It will be interesting to see what they do.


  • #2
    Originally posted by Miss.Saigon View Post
    What does the second Amendment actually say about your right to bear arms?? You may be about to find out. The supreme court is currently considering a case about whether Washington DC can ban guns or not. I think this will be the first second amendment case since the thirties.
    Actually, to clarify -- it is deciding whether Washington DC can ban handguns (pistols). I believe other types of permitted guns (e.g. rifles) are not on the table for discussion related to this case.
    "I am not an atomic playboy."
    Vice Admiral William P. Blandy

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by mirrorshades View Post
      Actually, to clarify -- it is deciding whether Washington DC can ban handguns (pistols). I believe other types of permitted guns (e.g. rifles) are not on the table for discussion related to this case.
      Well then, now I doubt even more whether the constitutional question will even be touched.

      Comment


      • #4
        My understanding is DC is treated similarly to a state body in that they have representation in the house. I find it odd that they would even touch this although maybe it is time to get this settled once and for all. And try as they might, formally banning handguns in DC isn't going to force any criminals to flock to turn in points, unless they are doing a "rocks for Glocks" swap.
        Welcome to the adult world. Kinda sucks when you have to be the responsible ones and take all the pot shots from the chagrined lefties and mongoloid celebrities, who don't know their collective posteriors from sound economic policy. - 98ZJUSMC

        Comment


        • #5
          Fortunately this is not like other things where we will have to wait a while for a decision or answer. This they will decide soon enough.

          But I do not believe it will settle anything, especially afer what Mirror clarified for me. The news here portrayed it as a second Amendment case but now I doubt that very much. I am sure second amendment arguments will be made but my money is on the Court skirting that issue and not ruling on it nor incorporating it.

          But as I said, the nice thing is that we will know at least about this case in a few months, not years.

          As a legal issue the secoond Amendment seems to be a lot like the War Powers act. No one wants to seriously test it because both sides are afraid of what the answer might be. Easier just to argue around the middle ground.
          Last edited by Miss Saigon; 21 Nov 07, 11:34.

          Comment


          • #6
            The last time the SC had this topic before them was something like 70 years ago. How people read it today is a bit different than how the SC read it back then.

            The Supreme Court last looked at the Second Amendment nearly 70 years ago in United States v. Miller, a 1939 decision that suggested, without explicitly deciding, that the right should be understood in connection with service in a militia

            http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us...html?th&emc=th

            HP
            "Ask not what your country can do for you"

            Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

            you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

            Comment


            • #7
              My bet is that the Supremes will uphold the Appeals Court ruling that the DC law is unconstitutional. But I think their ruling will be on narrow, technical issues and not on a broad constitutional basis.

              I think we'll be left with the same debate as to whether or Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual or a collective right. I hope I'm wrong...But the Supremes don't like to make broad rulings. It’ll be a small win for the NRA and other defenders of our Second Amendment rights.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Miss.Saigon View Post
                What does the second Amendment actually say about your right to bear arms??
                .
                I think everone should have the right to wear sleeveless shirts if they so wish

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                  My bet is that the Supremes will uphold the Appeals Court ruling that the DC law is unconstitutional. But I think their ruling will be on narrow, technical issues and not on a broad constitutional basis.

                  I think we'll be left with the same debate as to whether or Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual or a collective right. I hope I'm wrong...But the Supremes don't like to make broad rulings. It’ll be a small win for the NRA and other defenders of our Second Amendment rights.
                  60% Doc's scenario 40% the other way (i.e. overrule the appeals court) but also in a technical, limited manner, no broad issues'
                  “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                  “To talk of many things:
                  Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                  Of cabbages—and kings—
                  And why the sea is boiling hot—
                  And whether pigs have wings.”
                  ― Lewis Carroll

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by redcoat View Post
                    I think everone should have the right to wear sleeveless shirts if they so wish

                    At least less people will get hurt.
                    The truth? You can't handle the truth! No truth handler you! I deride your truth handling abilities!
                    Sideshow Bob.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by redcoat View Post
                      I think everone should have the right to wear sleeveless shirts if they so wish

                      But only in England! Please! ohhh... we'll be sending you Kevin Federline later on too!
                      Welcome to the adult world. Kinda sucks when you have to be the responsible ones and take all the pot shots from the chagrined lefties and mongoloid celebrities, who don't know their collective posteriors from sound economic policy. - 98ZJUSMC

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Given the decades of pure crap that has come out of D.C., I'm surprised they haven't banned everything up to and including slingshots to protect those delicate little "servants of the people".

                        It won't make any difference - the criminals don't really give a rodent's butt whether handguns are banned or not. Lawmakers don't seem able to grasp the essential point - laws only apply to those who are conditioned to obey them. Everyone else does as they damned well please...kind of like politicians. And just wait until the polioticans discover that they are now banned from keeping a home defense weapon, and have to depend on the cops like the rest of the peasants!
                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally Posted by Miss.Saigon
                          What does the second Amendment actually say about your right to bear arms??
                          Originally posted by redcoat View Post
                          I think everone should have the right to wear sleeveless shirts if they so wish
                          Uhhhh... no, you missed the meaning entirely....


                          It means that bears are allowed to have arms, just like everyone else.

                          Duh!
                          "I am not an atomic playboy."
                          Vice Admiral William P. Blandy

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Combatengineer View Post
                            60% Doc's scenario 40% the other way (i.e. overrule the appeals court) but also in a technical, limited manner, no broad issues'
                            If the rulling is of a limited-technical nature; it'll be 7-2 to uphold the Appeals Court...Maybe even 9-0.

                            If it goes to a more broad-constitutional nature...it'll be a 5-4 ruling one way or the other.

                            I don't think they want to set a huge precedent like this by one vote...They'll dodge it.
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If they ban handguns in D.C., how shall Marion Berry protect himself on drug deals? Oh, the humanity.....
                              Delegate, MN GOP.

                              PATRIA SI, COMUNISMO NO

                              http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/p...?id=1156276727

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • casanova
                                Berlin.1945
                                by casanova
                                The Sowjet T-34 tank against a German Tiger tank in Berlin in the II World War in 1945. ...
                                Yesterday, 23:41
                              • casanova
                                AW 169M
                                by casanova
                                The Austrian minister of defence Klaudia Tanner declared the buy of 18 Italian military helicopters of the type AW 169M for the Austrian army, the Bundesheer....
                                Yesterday, 23:26
                              • JBark
                                What changed?
                                by JBark
                                There was a time not too long ago when this forum was full of discussion, multiple posts, votes and involved discussions on the best of the war, etc.,...
                                Yesterday, 18:54
                              Working...
                              X