SCOTUS issued its opinion in McDonald v. Chicago today. The opinion includes the court's view that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of all Americans and that the Second Amendment applies to states and municipalities to bar their attempts to enforce silly and/or arbitrary gun bans on otherwise law-abiding folks.
Me likey.
Put another way, "states rights," as applied to the Second Amendment, drew a resounding "****-off sheep dip" from the Court
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser; in fees, expenses and waste of time." -- Abraham Lincoln, (1809-1865) Lawyer and President who saved the United States.
"Without opportunities on the part of the poor to obtain expert legal advice, it is idle to talk of equality before the law"-- Justice Chas. Evans Hughes
Yep. Two big Con Law decisions today, actually. Cristian Legal Society v. Martinez is a pretty major refinement of limited public forum doctrine. They did some good work.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
The article I read on those cases seems to indicate that the SC had previously ruled that the guarantees in the Bill of Rights applied to Federal, State and Local laws.
“If a team is to reach its potential, each player must be willing to subordinate his personal goals to the good of the team.”
Bud Wilkinson
I can't believe the nerve of some people, taking measures to protect themselves.The appeal was filed by a community activist in Chicago who sought a handgun for protection from gangs. Otis McDonald told CNN outside his South Side home that he wants a handgun to protect himself and his family from the violence in his neighborhood. "That's all I want, is just a fighting chance," he said. "Give me the opportunity to at least make somebody think about something before they come in my house on me."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/...ex.html?hpt=T1
.
At least I'm not Jersey Sooner.
Nope. Some of them, not all of them. Justice Black had argued that the entire BoR was applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the 14th, but the majority disagreed with him and the Court has taken a case-by-case approach.Originally Posted by soonerboomer93
If you want a look at what's applicable to the states and what's not, google "selective incorporation." Or I have a spreadsheet I made for Con Law I can e-mail you.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
As a dues paying member of CLS, I was disappointed in that decision. I haven't read it yet. Fortunately the student chapter of the organization at Tulsa receives funds from the administration as other student orgs do, and is unaffected by this decision because TU isn't public.
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser; in fees, expenses and waste of time." -- Abraham Lincoln, (1809-1865) Lawyer and President who saved the United States.
"Without opportunities on the part of the poor to obtain expert legal advice, it is idle to talk of equality before the law"-- Justice Chas. Evans Hughes
As a student-fees paying member of a public university community, I was happy with it.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
I'll be interested to read the Martinez case. I wrote a Law Review article on the traditional public forum involving the 1992 case International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992). In that case the Court held 5-4 that public airports are not traditional public forums. (The Hare Krisnas lost the right to solicit folks at the airport free from regulation).
"Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It's just ganging up against the weird kid, and I'm always the weird kid.."
Penn Jillette
I kinda felt it might go the other way, given existing precedent for public accommodation of faith based orgs. I reckon the thing that licked us was the fact you must profess belief in Christ as your personal Savior as a condition of membership in the organization. Not to attend meetings, but to be a card-carrying member. If you could be a CLS member regardless of your personal beliefs, I think they would have been okay. That said, I'm proud of CLS for sticking to its guns on the fundamental tenet of the organization.As a student-fees paying member of a public university community, I was happy with it.
I suspect the Court would be okay with rooms set-aside in public buildings for Muslim prayers as long as said prayers did not bar access to non-Muslims during prayer time. Which of course is an absurd distinction, but that's the way these things are justified sometimes.
BTW, do they have a student CLS chapter at UA Law?
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser; in fees, expenses and waste of time." -- Abraham Lincoln, (1809-1865) Lawyer and President who saved the United States.
"Without opportunities on the part of the poor to obtain expert legal advice, it is idle to talk of equality before the law"-- Justice Chas. Evans Hughes
Yeah, I think you're right. Haven't had a chance to read the opinion yet (in typical Ginsburg fashion, it's 85 pages long) but barring non-Christians from membership was probably the determinative factor. CLS made the argument that non-Christians could then take over the group and either change the bylaws or elect people in such a way that would violate their principles, but I don't think the Court gave that argument must credence.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
I'd be interested to read the article. Is it on SSRN or any other database?
Gah. I need to start researching my note...
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
hmmm.. I haven't read the opinion yet, but in interpreting the Second Amendment which states:SCOTUS issued its opinion in McDonald v. Chicago today. The opinion includes the court's view that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of all Americans and that the Second Amendment applies to states and municipalities to bar their attempts to enforce silly and/or arbitrary gun bans on otherwise law-abiding folks.
Me likey.
Put another way, "states rights," as applied to the Second Amendment, drew a resounding "****-off sheep dip" from the Court
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a "prefatory clause," the remainder of the amendment is the "operative clause."
I would be very surprised if SCOTUS did not interpret the 2nd Amendment as a whole and held the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause and that the intent of the framers was not to protect militias per se, but instead, the prefatory clause is in fact an absolute clause, stands by itself, is not and does not modify the operative clause and as a result, the 2nd Amendment consequently, addresses two constitutional rights... (1). the right to have a well regulated militia and (2). an individual's now, absolute right to bear arms.
hmm.. on the other hand, not being a constitutional law attorney, I could not know what the hell I'm talking about.
edit.. well crapola.. apparently all they did was extend the Heller decision from 2 years ago to state and local laws and did not address how legislative bodies can reconcile gun control laws with 2nd Amendment concerns. They left that for another day.
Last edited by TexasLidig8r; 6/28/2010 at 02:27 PM.
In Pacem Requiescat --- October 5, 2003 - October 18, 2010.
Here's the article's name and cite - "First Amendment Public Forum Analysis: International Society For Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee: Is the Public Forum a Closed Category?" 46 Okla. L. Rev. 155 (1993).
If you need my name to find the article PM me.
One of my "fond" memories writing this note was having the power go out and losing two pages of freshly written material. Have fun with your note.
"Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It's just ganging up against the weird kid, and I'm always the weird kid.."
Penn Jillette
Virtually guarenteeing both NRA and the Brady Center have sufficient grist to litigate virtually indefinitely. Which, not insignificantly will be sufficient impetus for both orgs to solicit donations, and receive same, through the end of this century.
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser; in fees, expenses and waste of time." -- Abraham Lincoln, (1809-1865) Lawyer and President who saved the United States.
"Without opportunities on the part of the poor to obtain expert legal advice, it is idle to talk of equality before the law"-- Justice Chas. Evans Hughes
PS: there's a lot of stuff in the opinion about ex-Rebs in the former Confederate states' disarming of newly emancipated blacks in order to continue their subjugation in the post-war South, and why the incorporation of the Second Amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment is particularly apt.hmmm.. I haven't read the opinion yet, but in interpreting the Second Amendment which states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a "prefatory clause," the remainder of the amendment is the "operative clause."
I would be very surprised if SCOTUS did not interpret the 2nd Amendment as a whole and held the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause and that the intent of the framers was not to protect militias per se, but instead, the prefatory clause is in fact an absolute clause, stands by itself, is not and does not modify the operative clause and as a result, the 2nd Amendment consequently, addresses two constitutional rights... (1). the right to have a well regulated militia and (2). an individual's now, absolute right to bear arms.
hmm.. on the other hand, not being a constitutional law attorney, I could not know what the hell I'm talking about.
edit.. well crapola.. apparently all they did was extend the Heller decision from 2 years ago to state and local laws and did not address how legislative bodies can reconcile gun control laws with 2nd Amendment concerns. They left that for another day.
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser; in fees, expenses and waste of time." -- Abraham Lincoln, (1809-1865) Lawyer and President who saved the United States.
"Without opportunities on the part of the poor to obtain expert legal advice, it is idle to talk of equality before the law"-- Justice Chas. Evans Hughes
Or as a lawyer from another blog I read on a daily basis said, they just guaranteed job protections for constitutional law attorneys.hmmm.. I haven't read the opinion yet, but in interpreting the Second Amendment which states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a "prefatory clause," the remainder of the amendment is the "operative clause."
I would be very surprised if SCOTUS did not interpret the 2nd Amendment as a whole and held the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause and that the intent of the framers was not to protect militias per se, but instead, the prefatory clause is in fact an absolute clause, stands by itself, is not and does not modify the operative clause and as a result, the 2nd Amendment consequently, addresses two constitutional rights... (1). the right to have a well regulated militia and (2). an individual's now, absolute right to bear arms.
hmm.. on the other hand, not being a constitutional law attorney, I could not know what the hell I'm talking about.
edit.. well crapola.. apparently all they did was extend the Heller decision from 2 years ago to state and local laws and did not address how legislative bodies can reconcile gun control laws with 2nd Amendment concerns. They left that for another day.
Just imagine there's a really obnoxious graphical sig here
Gun control is a popular move by those that want absolute power and a general disarming of the population is a hint that bad times are comin'. I think the Founding Fathers' real concern was that a tyrannical government would disarm the public, removing the population's ability to form a well-organized militia to fight the tyranny. So I read the 2nd Amendment as: In order to be able to form well-organized militias, the public has a right to keep and bear arms.
I can't see any other way of reading this amendment.
But SCOTUS didn't ask for my opinion.
.
At least I'm not Jersey Sooner.
I'll have to be sure to read the opinion when I get the chance. I'll bet Bloomburg is in a bad mood today. That punk *** Brady as well.
"Once a country boy's seen the way the steam rises off a man's insides on the sidewalk Tends to change the way he thinks, the way he sees everything when he goes back to where he came from."
POSSE TRANSPORTATION SPECIALIST. "It Fell Off the Back of a Truck."
This is why the 14th Amendment ought to be repealed. NONE of the BoR should apply to the states.
If Chicago, NYC, etc. want to restrict the right to own a firearm then that ought to be an issue between themselves, their state legislature, and its citizens.
I've got a friend who is just about as liberal as you can get on most things, but he's a 2nd Am supporter because of the Deacons for Defense. He's white, btw, and a staunch anti-racist.
You tell me it's the institution. Well, you know, you'd better free your mind instead.
(Shoo-bee doo-wah)
Soon to be Memphibian
Posting Permissions
