GUN Ban handguns? Supreme Court taking a new look

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by thegooch, Sep 30, 2009.

  1. thegooch

    thegooch OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,577
    Likes Received:
    40
  2. :bowdown: This will likely go well.
     
  3. Paul Revere

    Paul Revere OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    38,936
    Likes Received:
    177
    Location:
    Cali-NO NFA-fornia
    heard about this from a buddy of mine a few hours ago but i didnt have a link :hs:
     
  4. Paul Revere

    Paul Revere OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    38,936
    Likes Received:
    177
    Location:
    Cali-NO NFA-fornia
    hopefully we get more case law established :bowdown:
     
  5. GlassUser

    GlassUser send an email not a pm OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    265,136
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Pearland, Texas
    It will get sunk. But it's a good idea.
     
  6. What will get sunk? The overwhelming feeling is that the ban is going to go down in flames.
     
  7. JP

    JP Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    Messages:
    51,613
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    562
    NICE
     
  8. Soybomb

    Soybomb New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    Messages:
    9,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Illinois
    chicago is fucked like a $2 whore
     
  9. GlassUser

    GlassUser send an email not a pm OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    265,136
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Pearland, Texas
    I don't see it happening. But I can hope and pray.
     
  10. Soybomb

    Soybomb New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    Messages:
    9,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Illinois
    So you're basing your prediction off nothing but a wild ass uneducated guess? Do you do lottery numbers too?
     
  11. GlassUser

    GlassUser send an email not a pm OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    265,136
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Pearland, Texas
    Actually I'm basing it on my recollection of the histories of the justices and some incidental stuff they said in the heller ruling opinion.
     
  12. Joe_Cool

    Joe_Cool Never trust a woman or a government. Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    299,300
    Likes Received:
    562
    The ban is completely contrary to the ruling in Heller. What grounds do you think it'll be upheld on?
     
  13. GlassUser

    GlassUser send an email not a pm OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    265,136
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Pearland, Texas
    Selective incorporation. Heller was a unique case because there is no state law to jump in the middle.
     
  14. Soybomb

    Soybomb New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    Messages:
    9,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Illinois
    "the histories of the justices"? I see words but you're not saying anything here. Make your case. What did they say in the ruling that makes you feel this way?
     
  15. lobstradomus

    lobstradomus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CA
    I wonder how this decision might conflict with that of the Montana suit that's supposed to be filed tomorrow. This suit looks to extend Federal rights and decisions over states, while Montana's suit will seek to limit Federal rules that interfere with intrastate rights and sovereignty.
    It would be great if we won both cases and got the feds out of intrastate gun business after they ruled against gun bans and such, but that is one hell of a long shot.
     
  16. Joe_Cool

    Joe_Cool Never trust a woman or a government. Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    299,300
    Likes Received:
    562
    wat? This doesn't seek to extend any rights except those of the people.
     
  17. thegooch

    thegooch OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,577
    Likes Received:
    40

    Docket: 08-1521
    Title: McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago
    Issue: Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.
     
  18. thegooch

    thegooch OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,577
    Likes Received:
    40
    Copy/paste

    Because if my understanding of the case is correct, there's no way we can lose regardless of how it's decided.

    Chicago argues that the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal land, and not to the states. Ergo, the concept of "incorporation" via the 14th Amendment is null and void.

    McDonald argues that the 2nd Amendment does apply as "incorporation" vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment is valid.

    If McDonald wins, further affirmation is granted to Heller and the unconstitutionality of banning firearms.

    If Chicago wins, SCOTUS is saying that the "incorporation" clause of the 14th Amendment is invalidated (I would argue - by the 10th Amendment) and therefore a precedent is set which further separates state governments from federal government control.
     
  19. Joe_Cool

    Joe_Cool Never trust a woman or a government. Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    299,300
    Likes Received:
    562
    FYI, there is no incorporation clause. Selective incorporation is bullshit.
     
  20. lobstradomus

    lobstradomus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CA
    Perhaps my phrasing was wrong. As I understand it, this will extend federal protection of the individual rights (Constitution+BOR) by supplanting state law.
     
  21. Joe_Cool

    Joe_Cool Never trust a woman or a government. Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    299,300
    Likes Received:
    562
    Ok, I have no problem with that. You can have more federal-level protection of personal liberties AND get the fed out of business that is the purview of the states at the same time. :x: That's what I'd like to see come out of this.
     
  22. lobstradomus

    lobstradomus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CA
    That would be great, but I don't see it as likely to happen. While the two cases aren't exactly contradictory they certainly spawn from different sentiments IMO.
     
  23. zumin3k

    zumin3k New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Didn't the 9th circuit already incorporate the 2nd amendment with the Nordyke case?
     
  24. GlassUser

    GlassUser send an email not a pm OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    265,136
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Pearland, Texas
    Of course the docket doesn't say anything about it. That's the counter that the justices or defense will use.
     
  25. GlassUser

    GlassUser send an email not a pm OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    265,136
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Pearland, Texas
    From their own desent, in Heller v DC, by a bare majority:
    And later:
    All it would take is one justice to see the statehood thing a little different when an actual state is involved to flip this ruling in the context of a state's right to legislate restrictions on the second amendment, versus the federal congress's right to legislate restrictions on a federal district.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
     

Share This Page