2nd Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Steerpike, Jun 27, 2008.

  1. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    The District of Columbia isn't a State - it falls under federal jurisdiction, even though the city now has its own government etc.

    The 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated into the 14th Amendment and applied to the States. I'm assuming the Court did not do that yesterday, as that issue wasn't before them.

    So I predict a loophole that people will try to argue with respect to State and local gun legislation - that the 2nd Amendment hasn't been held to apply to the States.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,551
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,971
    Then it will go back to the Court and this Court will make it clear it applies.
     
  3. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    Probably, but it would be unfortunate to have to see the whole thing crawl back up to the Supreme Court on that issue.
     
  4. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428

    I think any lawyer who tries to hang his hat on the incorporation issue would be shooting blanks. pardon the pun! :eusa_angel:
     
  5. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    I think so too...at the end of the day. But it seems like it provides a ground for appealing a decision back up to the Court.
     
  6. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    But if it's the same Court, it would be pointless. Scalia didn't address the militia issue, which I'd think would have been far more relevant. I suspect he'd slap down anyone who raised the incorporation argument.

    Now, if the court changes, I don't know that the result would even change that much, but the rationale might make more sense.

    Although it really was a brilliant dissent. ;o)
     
  7. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    I think the majority got it right, so even if the Court changes hopefully the idea of stare decisis hasn't disappeared entirely.

    Will be interesting to see what cases come up from here on out.
     
  8. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    I don't know, Scalia eviscerated a bunch of Sandra Day O'Connor's opinions immediately after her departure. And Thomas, at least, doesn't believe in Stare Decisis at all.

    My opinion on the decision...the Constitution would prohibit a total ban since guns are the only property specifically set forth as being constitutionally protected (other than in a general "property" sense), so clearly there was some intent to make sure they weren't touched. do I think it's a private right of self-defense? No... for the reasons set forth in the defense. Is there a position somewhere in there that protects guns? Yes. And any other supreme court make-up would have sussed it out, accepted the fact that they were ruling on something that courts have avoided ruling on for hundreds of years and conferenced the issues until they had an opinion that wouldn't change as soon as the court changes composition.

    Do I think the reasons for the Amendment still exist? Probably not. But no one's seen fit to change it and it is what it is.
     
  9. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054


    *ding

    :cool:
     
  10. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054

    *ding

    uhm...err...ah....

    :eek:
     

Share This Page