From what I understand in talking to a colleague of mine, there will be another case in about two years at the SCOTUS. The decision just issued pertained to the federal government not restrictinggun ownership, which is the only relevant legislative body applying to DC since it is not a state.
Next, Chicago will be the defendent stating that STATES have the right to ban gun ownership, and Kennedy might easily state that they can.
Let's be clear about this, if Obama gets elected and replaces a justice due to retirement or declining health, etc. before the Chicago case, there is a very good chance you could lose your right to own a firearm to protect your families. He was in favor of the DC gun ban, so what makes us think he won't nominate someone who similarly feels that a total ban on gun ownership is reasonable?
Even if McCain gets elected, Kennedy is a wild card that could spell the beginning of the end for the second ammendment depending on what state you live in. Even if your state is conservative, it could be a matter of time before you lose the right to bear arms...
I'm all for electing presidents who will appoint conservative, originalist supreme court justices and hence I am voting for the McCain and not Obama (and not sitting the election out, which is substantially equivalent to a vote for Obama) in November.
The question as to the applicability of the Bill of Rights to states is, to some extent, undecided. From a brief scan of Bill of Rights on Wikipedia, it appears that most -- but not all -- provisions of the Bill of Rights has been judged to be binding on states under the doctrine of "selective incorporation." I don't know if the second amendment is in or out.
From what I understand in talking to a colleague of mine, there will be another case in about two years at the SCOTUS
I don't think they are back logged like that but who knows.
It takes a while for cases to get there. They have to have a District Court ruling and then a Court of Appeals ruling before the case can get to the Supremes. I don't think he meant that there was a case presently on the docket that will be decided two years from now.
I'm all for electing presidents who will appoint conservative, originalist supreme court justices and hence I am voting for the McCain and not Obama (and not sitting the election out, which is substantially equivalent to a vote for Obama) in November.
Bravo!
Quote:
The question as to the applicability of the Bill of Rights to states is, to some extent, undecided. From a brief scan of Bill of Rights on Wikipedia, it appears that most -- but not all -- provisions of the Bill of Rights has been judged to be binding on states under the doctrine of "selective incorporation." I don't know if the second amendment is in or out.
From what I understand in talking to a colleague of mine, there will be another case in about two years at the SCOTUS. The decision just issued pertained to the federal government not restrictinggun ownership, which is the only relevant legislative body applying to DC since it is not a state.
Next, Chicago will be the defendent stating that STATES have the right to ban gun ownership, and Kennedy might easily state that they can.
Let's be clear about this, if Obama gets elected and replaces a justice due to retirement or declining health, etc. before the Chicago case, there is a very good chance you could lose your right to own a firearm to protect your families. He was in favor of the DC gun ban, so what makes us think he won't nominate someone who similarly feels that a total ban on gun ownership is reasonable?
Even if McCain gets elected, Kennedy is a wild card that could spell the beginning of the end for the second ammendment depending on what state you live in. Even if your state is conservative, it could be a matter of time before you lose the right to bear arms...
You probably haven't read the decision. You should. You'll be more optimistic if you do. One thing you'll note is that Scalia goes on at great length regarding the right to "bear" arms, even though that issue was not on appeal.
The principal point in the decision itself is that it makes it clear that the second amendment describes an individual right not the collective right of a militia. This cuts the legs out from under the anti-gun crowd'sstrongest argument.
I suggest that we all read the opinion. We are going to need to know what it says when we debate with the antis. We don't have to develop our own arguments. We can use Scalia's.
You probably haven't read the decision. You should. You'll be more optimistic if you do. One thing you'll note is that Scalia goes on at great length regarding the right to "bear" arms, even though that issue was not on appeal.
The principal point in the decision itself is that it makes it clear that the second amendment describes an individual right not the collective right of a militia. This cuts the legs out from under the anti-gun crowd'sstrongest argument.
I suggest that we all read the opinion. We are going to need to know what it says when we debate with the antis. We don't have to develop our own arguments. We can use Scalia's.
I've skimmed through it. I'm a little concerned about the discussion on page 47 of the opinion. The majority discusses the Cruikshank ruling which states that the right to bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution or in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment... means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." Scalia's opinion then says: "States, we said, were free to restrict or protect the right under their police powers."
This battle is FAR from over. Any vote for Obama is a vote against the 2nd Amendment, and WILL cost us dearly.
You probably haven't read the decision. You should. You'll be more optimistic if you do. One thing you'll note is that Scalia goes on at great length regarding the right to "bear" arms, even though that issue was not on appeal.
The principal point in the decision itself is that it makes it clear that the second amendment describes an individual right not the collective right of a militia. This cuts the legs out from under the anti-gun crowd'sstrongest argument.
I suggest that we all read the opinion. We are going to need to know what it says when we debate with the antis. We don't have to develop our own arguments. We can use Scalia's.
I've skimmed through it. I'm a little concerned about the discussion on page 47 of the opinion. The majority discusses the Cruikshank ruling which states that the right to bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution or in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment... means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." Scalia's opinion then says: "States, we said, were free to restrict or protect the right under their police powers."
This battle is FAR from over. Any vote for Obama is a vote against the 2nd Amendment, and WILL cost us dearly.
The cases that Scalia cites regarding incorporation are quite old. There has been an increasing tendency for the court to apply Constitutional rights to the states through the 14th amendment. It's pretty clear though, that no justice appointed by Obama would do so.
I think we are putting WAY to much stock into all of this "talk" about doing this or banning that. They knowthe financial gain to keep hunting and various gun sporting events...I don't think ANYONE really wants the title of " The guy who re-wrote the 2nd Ammendment", why would anyone want to piss off 50 million law abiding gun owners? City bans on gun ownership only work for those who actually abide by the law, criminals could care less. And yes, a law suit has been issuedagainstthe city of Chicago. IF anyone brain dead enough to actually pursue a full out banon gun nationwide, they better have the Navy Seals surrounding them 24/7.
Second Ammendment battle is NOT over!
