2nd Amendment in Supreme Court again.

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by RetiredGySgt, Mar 1, 2010.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,580
    Thanks Received:
    5,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,000
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I actually think that the way some amendments to the constitution are written that they are applied universally such as the 5th amendment. It says "no person shall..." which implies that any person shall have these protections against anything such as the city, state, federal government, or any government witihin in the United States. Its the reason the 5th amendment can be applied to state government actions while the first amendment can't since it starts out with 'congress shall pass no law'.

    The 2nd amendment is kind of written the same way by saying the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There are no exceptions to the rule that say the federal government can't infringe on your right to bear arms but the states can. It applies universally to all governments within the United States.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2010
  3. 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
    McDonald vs. Chicago. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-guns3-2010mar03,0,3193015.story

    We'll see what happens soon enough, but it looks like another mixed bag.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2010
  4. 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
    There are arguments made on whether the limits are on the national government only or if the limits apply to states as well.

    Unregulated in it's broadest interpretation is a recipe for disaster.
    -http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-guns3-2010mar03,0,3193015.story
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2010
  5. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I think if it meant that the federal government could not ban guns but state and local government could then they would have written it like the first amendment that went something like "congress shall pass no law...". Instead, it is written like the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed which applies to everything.
     
  6. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    More quack and flap, why am I not surprised? Somebody needs to step up and take O'Connor's old mantle soon, there are a lot of issues on the docket that should be decided not ducked.
     
  7. 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
    I've browsed a few sites. It appears others are saying it looks like it could be a mixed bag or even a wash.

    It will be surprising if the court actually tackles the big issues here, but the odds are they will not.
     
  8. 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
    I think society evolves and the meanings of words do too. Throw in ideologial battles mixed with political demands and we get trouble every so many decades.

    Maybe it is time for a Constitutional Convention. But I would fear that more than anything.

    I do not trust the leaders we have today. We do not have anything like the elite we had over 200 years ago. I do not trust the 'people' and never will.
     
  9. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    No, I doubt they will. The Court is too polarized and there's nobody left in the middle with the clout to forge a consensus. Kennedy? He's not a dumbass or a bad guy by any means, but as far as wheeling and dealing with the internal politics he's no Sandra Day. This is the biggest problem with not having a few strong relatively centrist pragmatists on the Court, not much gets resolved.
     
  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
    Obama seems like the type to appoint that kind. I think his Latina is more middle than left. She is strong. Give her time.

    Obama was more of a centrist than most when he was at Harvard Law and elsewhere.
     

Share This Page