PDA

View Full Version : Big gun rights case coming up potentially



Collier11
3/1/2010, 03:31 PM
Lets hope the SC does the right thing and prohibits the banning of guns

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1165



Supreme Court to hear gun-rights case that reaches beyond 2nd Amendment

Fri Feb 26, 9:33 pm ET

As the high court's 2009-2010 term winds down, Yahoo! News will look at some key cases whose decisions have potential to impact the lives of everyday people.

Nearly two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in a landmark ruling with a 5-4 vote. The decision in District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment does indeed protect an individual’s right to gun ownership (although there are still limits).Yet that ruling did not settle the question once and for all.

Why? Because the District is a federal enclave, subject to federal laws. The ruling, therefore, did not address whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. So while the Heller decision was hailed as a big victory for gun-rights advocates, it didn’t stop states or cities from enacting similar laws that restrict gun ownership. (D.C.-adjacent Maryland, for example, could have instituted the exact same ban and not gotten into legal hot water over it.)

But in the next few months, the Supreme Court could take that extra step. On Tuesday, the justices will hear arguments from lawyers on both sides of a case brought by residents of Chicago who are seeking to have a handgun ban in their city struck down. They want the Second Amendment to apply to local governments the same way the high court said it applied to the federal government in Heller.

Otis McDonald is the lead plaintiff in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The retired maintenance engineer says he wants to be able to keep a gun in his home to protect himself. But Chicago’s strict gun-control law, considered very similar to the law struck down in Heller, prohibits him from doing so. (McDonald, who was recently profiled in the Chicago Tribune, was hand-picked by lawyers hoping to bring this challenge. He happens to be black and a Democrat – a rarity among American gun-rights advocates, who are generally perceived to be white Republicans living in suburban or rural areas.)

The legal catch in this case is that it’s not really about the Second Amendment. When Congress passed the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the Constitution – it only protected people from infringements by the federal government. The Supreme Court later decided that each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights must be applied to the states individually, with specific rulings. The court has done so with most amendments, but thus far not with the Second, which it has explicitly ruled should not be applied to the states.

Instead, what will really be argued before the court is the Fourteenth Amendment, which has often been the vehicle the court has used to apply amendments from the Bill of Rights to the states. This amendment says, among other things, that the federal government cannot make or enforce any law that will "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens" and cannot "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Lawyers for McDonald will argue their case mostly based on the "privileges or immunities" clause; the National Rifle Association, which has been given a chance to argue before the justices too, will present a case for gun rights that turns more on the "due process" clause.

So, specifically, the question the high court must decide is this: Does the Fourteenth Amendment – either via the privileges-or-immunities clause or the due-process clause – mean that the Second Amendment protects people from state and local laws that abridge their right to bear arms?

The answer to that question involves a lot of complicated legal history and interpretation, and if the court does rule in favor of broader Second Amendment protections, it will almost certainly have to contradict its rulings in earlier cases.

The potential implications of this case are huge – and not just for gun rights. If the privileges-or-immunities argument prevails, it would bring back a constitutional argument that has been effectively dead since 1873, when a decision (known as the Slaughter-House cases) said that the clause only protects rights of national citizenship. But if the court reinterprets this clause, the wording is so broad that some think it could bring a flood of challenges to numerous other laws. Others fear a privileges-or-immunities revival will lead to too much judicial subjectivity.

This case has something for both "gun nuts" and "constitutional nuts," as Supreme Court scholar Ilya Shapiro put it to the Washington Post. It could maintain the status quo; it could dramatically expand the protection of people’s Second Amendment rights; or it could do that and dramatically change an approach to constitutional law.

Whatever the decision, we’ll probably know by the end of June, the last month of the court’s current term.

--Laura E. Davis

Crucifax Autumn
3/2/2010, 05:02 AM
That should be fun for the states rights people.

Collier11
3/2/2010, 05:06 AM
big ol can O worms for sure

Crucifax Autumn
3/2/2010, 05:15 AM
It's gonna have a LOT of people arguing like it's opposite day.

Okla-homey
3/2/2010, 11:03 AM
The upshot of this case is, whether the Second Amendment applies to the actions of states, counties and municipalities.

In lawyer-speak, it's about whether the Fourteenth Amendment, which "incorporates" your other civil rights found in the first ten amendments (a/k/a The Bill of Rights) and applies them against states, counties and municipalities, thus protecting you against these governments which may seek to infringe or trample on them, also incorporates the Second Amendment.

My money is on incorporation. It's a no-brainer. But hey, I'm an admitted gun rights guy and I'm biased. But at least I'm consistent. I feel the so-called "tort reformists" are trampling on your Seventh Amendment rights and all that sexy localized "tort reform" crap oughtta be canned under the same Fourteenth Amendment "incorporation" analysis.

homerSimpsonsBrain
3/2/2010, 11:09 AM
With this SC, betting money would have to be with the guns.

yermom
3/2/2010, 12:54 PM
that's a nice touch involving a black Democrat :D

Half a Hundred
3/2/2010, 01:38 PM
Just so y'all know, accepting the "privileges or immunities" argument and overturning Slaughter-house would essentially end state sovereignty in any form.

Luckily, it looked like the court, on both ends, wasn't having any part of that argument.

Collier11
3/2/2010, 02:15 PM
that's a nice touch involving a black Democrat :D

manbearpig?

LosAngelesSooner
3/2/2010, 02:43 PM
Does this mean I can start punching idiots in the face when they scream, "Obama is gonna take our gunzzzz!!!" ? ;)

Harry Beanbag
3/3/2010, 02:39 AM
Does this mean I can start punching idiots in the face when they scream, "Obama is gonna take our gunzzzz!!!" ? ;)

What does Obama have to do with this upcoming decision?

LosAngelesSooner
3/3/2010, 02:48 AM
EXACTLY

Harry Beanbag
3/3/2010, 02:51 AM
For example, when Obama ran for the Illinois state senate the political group, Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he supported a “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” and he responded “yes.” (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=03FA375F-3048-5C12-00CC7D33B6E8E59E)

Realizing how damaging this could prove in the general election, his presidential campaign “flatly denied” (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=03FA375F-3048-5C12-00CC7D33B6E8E59E) Obama ever held this view, blaming it instead on a staffer from his state senate race.

But then IVI provided (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=03FA375F-3048-5C12-00CC7D33B6E8E59E) Politico the questionnaire with Obama’s own handwritten notes revising another answer. Members of IVI’s board of directors, some of whom have worked on Obama’s past campaigns, told Politico that “I always believed those to be his views, what he really believes in, and he’s tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate.”

But the IVI questionnaire isn’t the only one out there.

In 1998, another questionnaire administered by IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test didn’t ask about banning all handguns, but it did find that Obama wanted (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm) to “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”

Indeed, such a ban would outlaw virtually all handguns and the vast majority of rifles sold in the United States.

In addition, from 1998 to 2001, Obama was on the board of directors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Foundation#Governance) for the Joyce Foundation, which funded (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama_shooting_himself_in_the/) such anti-gun groups as the Violence Policy Center, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and Handgun Free America. Both the Violence Policy Center and Handgun Free America, as its name suggests, are in favor of a complete ban on handguns. During his tenure on the board, the Joyce Foundation was probably the major funder of pro-control research in the United States.

In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI’s question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said “Oh, you are the gun guy.”

I responded “Yes, I guess so.” He simply responded that “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”

When I said it might be fun to talk about the question sometime and about his support of the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the gun makers, he simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation.

If taken literally, Obama’s statement to me was closer to what the IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test found, indicating that Obama's bans would extend well beyond handguns.

Obama also opposes (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html) the current laws in 48 states that let citizens carry concealed handguns for protection claiming, despite (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html) all the academic studies to the contrary, that "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

Even Hillary Clinton disagrees (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html) with him on this.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347690,00.html

If he could, he would ban them all.

LosAngelesSooner
3/3/2010, 03:37 AM
Wait...so now you're saying he COULD ban all our guns?

Make up your mind...

Harry Beanbag
3/3/2010, 03:51 AM
Can you read or is your ******* in the way?

LosAngelesSooner
3/3/2010, 03:58 AM
Well, make up your mind...either Obama is after our gunz and they are allz in danger or he's not.

**** or get off the pot. We're at war.

Harry Beanbag
3/3/2010, 04:03 AM
You're rambling as usual. But to recap, I never stated he would or wouldn't, only that he has nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision. If he could take the guns, he would. That is undeniable.

You of all people should be really worried about it with your imaginary Cali CCW and 1000 yard sniper shooting ability.

Leroy Lizard
3/3/2010, 04:31 AM
Wait...so now you're saying he COULD ban all our guns?

I guess your major was not closely related to reading comprehension.

Crucifax Autumn
3/3/2010, 04:46 AM
You of all people should be really worried about it with your imaginary Cali CCW and 1000 yard sniper shooting ability.

He can shoot a gnat off Spielberg's dick at 300 yards! :P

Turd_Ferguson
3/3/2010, 07:54 AM
He can suck a gnat off Spielberg's dick at 300 yards! :P:eek:

1890MilesToNorman
3/3/2010, 08:24 AM
That should be fun for the states rights people.

This has nothing to do with states rights, the Constitution applies to all states. "Shall not be infringed" there's not much wiggle room in those words.

LosAngelesSooner
3/3/2010, 02:46 PM
You're rambling as usual. But to recap, I never stated he would or wouldn't, only that he has nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision. If he could take the guns, he would. That is undeniable.

You of all people should be really worried about it with your imaginary Cali CCW and 1000 yard sniper shooting ability.No...you try and say that "He's gonna take our gunz away!!!!"

Then you say, "HE can't take our gunz away!!!"

Now you're saying "He wishes he could take our gunz away!!!"

I just want you to make up your mind.

Oh...and the very reall Cali CCW permit is easy to prove...as is the 1000 yard marksmanship...if you're willing to stand 1000 yards away and let me and my spotter get one shot. ;)


I guess your major was not closely related to reading comprehension.Awww...you're cute. Trollish and nonsensical...but cute.

Harry Beanbag
3/3/2010, 03:11 PM
No...you try and say that "He's gonna take our gunz away!!!!"

I must have forgotten saying that. :confused:


Then you say, "HE can't take our gunz away!!!"

To be accurate, I said he has nothing to do with Supreme Court decisions. Jeez, how many times do I have to spell it out before you understand.


Now you're saying "He wishes he could take our gunz away!!!"

This is not arguable. He doesn't believe citizens should have the right to own guns.


I just want you to make up your mind.

My POV has been clearly stated on this issue. You are the one with the boisterously, mocking, fake problem, as usual.


Oh...and the very reall Cali CCW permit is easy to prove...as is the 1000 yard marksmanship...if you're willing to stand 1000 yards away and let me and my spotter get one shot.

I don't believe you.

LosAngelesSooner
3/3/2010, 06:24 PM
Heh...well, there's one way to solve this beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm game if you are, FuzzyBallsack.

Leroy Lizard
3/3/2010, 07:28 PM
Jeez, how many times do I have to spell it out before you understand.


Is this a serious question? Because if it is, we can do the math.

LosAngelesSooner
3/3/2010, 09:21 PM
I could just do a quick spin with the search feature and drop about 10 quotes from Herr Nutsack where he says as much. And he knowed it.

Turd_Ferguson
3/3/2010, 10:07 PM
No...you try and say that "He's gonna take our gunz away!!!!"

Then you say, "HE can't take our gunz away!!!"

Now you're saying "He wishes he could take our gunz away!!!"

I just want you to make up your mind.

Oh...and the very reall Cali CCW permit is easy to prove...as is the 1000 yard marksmanship...if you're willing to stand 1000 yards away and let me and my spotter get one shot. ;)

Awww...you're cute. Trollish and nonsensical...but cute.A THOUSAND yards???? Really???....and, you have a spotter???:D:D:D:D

LosAngelesSooner
3/3/2010, 11:35 PM
My brother. He was my spotter when I qualified...and we hunt together. Why not?

You saying you could do it without?

Collier11
3/3/2010, 11:42 PM
A THOUSAND yards???? Really???....and, you have a spotter???:D:D:D:D


considering that it takes elite level snipers in most cases to hit a kill shot from 3000 ft, I call BS

Crucifax Autumn
3/3/2010, 11:58 PM
This has nothing to do with states rights, the Constitution applies to all states. "Shall not be infringed" there's not much wiggle room in those words.

All I meant is it's a federal document referring to the federal government. I know none of it is exact as far as that goes, but the point is that this issue really does flip-flop the traditional stances, which I find funny is all.

tommieharris91
3/4/2010, 12:06 AM
For those who can parse legal mumbo-jumbo, here ya go. (http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/analysis-2d-amendment-extension-likely/)

Boarder
3/4/2010, 12:21 AM
This has nothing to do with states rights, the Constitution applies to all states. "Shall not be infringed" there's not much wiggle room in those words.
The Bill of Rights didn't automatically apply to states. Each Amendment (the ones that have) were ruled to apply in different Court cases. Forgive me for using wikipedia, but here is a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29#Amendment_Ii

I know what you're thinking, why didn't they all just get incorporated at once? Yeah, that's just the way it works.

Boarder
3/4/2010, 12:30 AM
For those who can parse legal mumbo-jumbo, here ya go. (http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/analysis-2d-amendment-extension-likely/)
Basically, they're saying that they think they should incorporate the 2nd amendment to states, but they don't want to make it some free-for-all where states have no chance at all of limiting gun ownership. So, they're trying to come up with a way that they can still allow some limits by states. It looks like incorporation will be a done deal, in some form.

Harry Beanbag
3/4/2010, 02:14 AM
I could just do a quick spin with the search feature and drop about 10 quotes from Herr Nutsack where he says as much. And he knowed it.

Go for it. Fail looks good on you.

LosAngelesSooner
3/4/2010, 02:21 PM
Oh, Harry...it's fun to watch you lose. :D

sooner59
3/4/2010, 05:51 PM
I am a Democrat....a little to the left of middle. However, there are some issues where I am firmly conservative. Guns is one. I grew up around guns. I had my first shotgun at 6 years old and I have hunted all of my life. We have handguns, however they are less useful in everyday life. We shoot them once in a while for fun out in the country....just target shooting.

IF.....and that is a huge "if".....any guns were banned, it would be the guns that have little need in everyday life. Probably SKS, and some handguns. Handguns are useful though for protection. However, rifles and other "hunting weapons" will not be messed with in the forseeable future. There would be way too much outrage. So I wouldn't worry about rifles and the such being taken away.

Turd_Ferguson
3/4/2010, 07:57 PM
Whats wrong with an SKS?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Norinco_SKS.jpg

delhalew
3/4/2010, 11:34 PM
I am a Democrat....a little to the left of middle. However, there are some issues where I am firmly conservative. Guns is one. I grew up around guns. I had my first shotgun at 6 years old and I have hunted all of my life. We have handguns, however they are less useful in everyday life. We shoot them once in a while for fun out in the country....just target shooting.

IF.....and that is a huge "if".....any guns were banned, it would be the guns that have little need in everyday life. Probably SKS, and some handguns. Handguns are useful though for protection. However, rifles and other "hunting weapons" will not be messed with in the forseeable future. There would be way too much outrage. So I wouldn't worry about rifles and the such being taken away.

Sks is a great deerhunter if you have a quality rifle.

delhalew
3/4/2010, 11:39 PM
If you want to retain the freedoms you have left, you need to hope the court does not come down on the side of incorporation.
The states need to be able to resonably restrict firearms and if the people of Illinois weren't jackholes, they would overturn this law themselves.

olevetonahill
3/7/2010, 06:51 AM
Does this mean I can start punching idiots in the face when they scream, "Obama is gonna take our gunzzzz!!!" ? ;)

Go fer it , But remember , Ya might just get punched back !:pop:

LosAngelesSooner
3/7/2010, 01:39 PM
*sigh*

Turd_Ferguson
3/7/2010, 01:52 PM
Go fer it , But remember , Ya might just get punched back !:pop:LAS throw's the first punch:D:D:D

3vBJLUQBdhQ

Collier11
3/7/2010, 01:55 PM
Wait, VET is black?

Turd_Ferguson
3/7/2010, 02:00 PM
Wait, VET is black?Just from neck to waist.:D

LosAngelesSooner
3/7/2010, 02:03 PM
You see what you caused last night Collier? I TOLD you that was gonna happen.

Tulsa_Fireman
3/7/2010, 03:20 PM
Just from neck to waist.:D

Insert obligatory "black people have big weiners" joke here.

Collier11
3/7/2010, 03:24 PM
You see what you caused last night Collier? I TOLD you that was gonna happen.

I was just askin a question

LosAngelesSooner
3/7/2010, 03:27 PM
So was Archduke Ferdinand...and see where that got us??

;)

Collier11
3/7/2010, 03:29 PM
you still never answered me :D

Im not a fire starter, I just fan the flame sometimes ;)

LosAngelesSooner
3/7/2010, 03:35 PM
^^^ THAT is MY job description! :D

Collier11
3/7/2010, 03:48 PM
you are a fire starter, a flame fanner, a **** storm producer, etc, etc... :D

Okla-homey
3/7/2010, 03:52 PM
Basically, they're saying that they think they should incorporate the 2nd amendment to states, but they don't want to make it some free-for-all where states have no chance at all of limiting gun ownership. So, they're trying to come up with a way that they can still allow some limits by states. It looks like incorporation will be a done deal, in some form.

You are correct. The thing gun rights folks love about this pending incorporation, as it appears SCOTUS will hold when the opinion is published, is state and municipalities will still be able to limit gun rights, but the kicker is, such limits will be strictly scrutinized by the Federal courts.

Put another way, unless the state or municipality can demonstrate a compelling purpose for the limitataion, and narrowly tailor it so it only appleis to precisely the folks who should not be allowed to own guns, it will fail judicial review.

The upshot of all that is, no more "one size fits all" gun bans will be legal. And that will be a wonderful day in America.

sooner59
3/7/2010, 06:21 PM
Whats wrong with an SKS?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Norinco_SKS.jpg

Nothing really. But some people don't see a reason for them other than screwing around. I have had friends deer hunt with them from time to time, but most of my friends who had one just used it to shoot whatever moved or get in trouble. I don't have a problem with it really. Its just a semi-automatic rifle, not much different from my 30-06. I have just heard some folks complain about kids in the country getting in trouble with them. Probably because its not the traditional deer rifle.

Okla-homey
3/7/2010, 07:55 PM
Nothing really. But some people don't see a reason for them other than screwing around. I have had friends deer hunt with them from time to time, but most of my friends who had one just used it to shoot whatever moved or get in trouble. I don't have a problem with it really. Its just a semi-automatic rifle, not much different from my 30-06. I have just heard some folks complain about kids in the country getting in trouble with them. Probably because its not the traditional deer rifle.

And they aren't very accurate either. Only accurate rifles are interesting.

delhalew
3/7/2010, 11:32 PM
And they aren't very accurate either. Only accurate rifles are interesting.

That's kind of relative isn't it? Sks is more accurate at the appropriate range than some other milsurp rifle. For gods sake, consider the AK-47. Talk about spray and pray.

sooner59
3/8/2010, 02:54 AM
Samuel L. Jackson from the movie "Foxy Brown":

"AK-47. When you wanna kill every mutha****** in tha room!.....accept no substitutes."