2nd Amendment in Supreme Court again.

[RetiredGySgt]

Supreme Court to hear gun-rights case that reaches beyond 2nd Amendment - Yahoo! News

Hopefully they will incorporate it this time.

 

[ihopehefails]

Supreme Court to hear gun-rights case that reaches beyond 2nd Amendment - Yahoo! News

Hopefully they will incorporate it this time.

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Supreme Court to hear gun-rights case that reaches beyond 2nd Amendment - Yahoo! News

Hopefully they will incorporate it this time.

McDonald vs. Chicago. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-guns3-2010mar03,0,3193015.story

A ruling striking down the Chicago handgun ban would reverberate nationwide because it would open the courthouse door to constitutional challenges to all manner of local or state gun regulations. However, the justices may not give much guidance on how far this right extends.

Roberts all but forecast the court would issue an opinion that avoids deciding the harder questions about whether guns can be carried in public as well as kept at home. "We haven't said anything about the content of the 2nd Amendment," Roberts said at one point. He added that the justices need not rule on whether there is a right to carry a "concealed" weapon.

We'll see what happens soon enough, but it looks like another mixed bag.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Supreme Court to hear gun-rights case that reaches beyond 2nd Amendment - Yahoo! News

Hopefully they will incorporate it this time.

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.

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.

A lawyer for Chicago argued that there is a long American tradition of permitting states and cities to set gun regulations. For 220 years, gun restrictions "have been a state and local decision," said attorney James A. Feldman. Cities should be permitted to set "reasonable regulations of firearms," he added, noting that Chicagoans are allowed to have rifles and shotguns in their homes.

But he ran into stiff questioning from Scalia and his colleagues.

At one during the argument, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested the right to bear arms could be limited to homes. A liberal who dissented in the earlier gun-rights case two years ago, Stevens said the court could rule for the Chicago home owners and say they had a right to a gun at home. At the same time, the court could say it is not "a right to parade around the street with a gun," Stevens said.

But that idea got no traction with the other justices, and a lawyer representing the National Rifle Assn. said the court should not adopt a "watered-down version" of the 2nd Amendment.

It will be several months before the court hands down a decision in the case of McDonald vs. Chicago.

-http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-guns3-2010mar03,0,3193015.story

 

[ihopehefails]

Supreme Court to hear gun-rights case that reaches beyond 2nd Amendment - Yahoo! News

Hopefully they will incorporate it this time.

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.

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.

A lawyer for Chicago argued that there is a long American tradition of permitting states and cities to set gun regulations. For 220 years, gun restrictions "have been a state and local decision," said attorney James A. Feldman. Cities should be permitted to set "reasonable regulations of firearms," he added, noting that Chicagoans are allowed to have rifles and shotguns in their homes.

But he ran into stiff questioning from Scalia and his colleagues.

At one during the argument, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested the right to bear arms could be limited to homes. A liberal who dissented in the earlier gun-rights case two years ago, Stevens said the court could rule for the Chicago home owners and say they had a right to a gun at home. At the same time, the court could say it is not "a right to parade around the street with a gun," Stevens said.

But that idea got no traction with the other justices, and a lawyer representing the National Rifle Assn. said the court should not adopt a "watered-down version" of the 2nd Amendment.

It will be several months before the court hands down a decision in the case of McDonald vs. Chicago.

-Justices signal they're ready to make gun ownership a national right - latimes.com

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.

 

[goldcatt]

Supreme Court to hear gun-rights case that reaches beyond 2nd Amendment - Yahoo! News

Hopefully they will incorporate it this time.

McDonald vs. Chicago. Justices signal they're ready to make gun ownership a national right - latimes.com

A ruling striking down the Chicago handgun ban would reverberate nationwide because it would open the courthouse door to constitutional challenges to all manner of local or state gun regulations. However, the justices may not give much guidance on how far this right extends.

Roberts all but forecast the court would issue an opinion that avoids deciding the harder questions about whether guns can be carried in public as well as kept at home. "We haven't said anything about the content of the 2nd Amendment," Roberts said at one point. He added that the justices need not rule on whether there is a right to carry a "concealed" weapon.

We'll see what happens soon enough, but it looks like another mixed bag.

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Supreme Court to hear gun-rights case that reaches beyond 2nd Amendment - Yahoo! News

Hopefully they will incorporate it this time.

McDonald vs. Chicago. Justices signal they're ready to make gun ownership a national right - latimes.com

A ruling striking down the Chicago handgun ban would reverberate nationwide because it would open the courthouse door to constitutional challenges to all manner of local or state gun regulations. However, the justices may not give much guidance on how far this right extends.

Roberts all but forecast the court would issue an opinion that avoids deciding the harder questions about whether guns can be carried in public as well as kept at home. "We haven't said anything about the content of the 2nd Amendment," Roberts said at one point. He added that the justices need not rule on whether there is a right to carry a "concealed" weapon.

We'll see what happens soon enough, but it looks like another mixed bag.

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.

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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.

A lawyer for Chicago argued that there is a long American tradition of permitting states and cities to set gun regulations. For 220 years, gun restrictions "have been a state and local decision," said attorney James A. Feldman. Cities should be permitted to set "reasonable regulations of firearms," he added, noting that Chicagoans are allowed to have rifles and shotguns in their homes.

But he ran into stiff questioning from Scalia and his colleagues.

At one during the argument, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested the right to bear arms could be limited to homes. A liberal who dissented in the earlier gun-rights case two years ago, Stevens said the court could rule for the Chicago home owners and say they had a right to a gun at home. At the same time, the court could say it is not "a right to parade around the street with a gun," Stevens said.

But that idea got no traction with the other justices, and a lawyer representing the National Rifle Assn. said the court should not adopt a "watered-down version" of the 2nd Amendment.

It will be several months before the court hands down a decision in the case of McDonald vs. Chicago.

-Justices signal they're ready to make gun ownership a national right - latimes.com

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.

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.

 

[goldcatt]

McDonald vs. Chicago. Justices signal they're ready to make gun ownership a national right - latimes.com

We'll see what happens soon enough, but it looks like another mixed bag.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

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.

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.

From what I understand of Obama's interpretation he's more of a pragmatist than anything, which suits me fine since that's the reading I tend to favor.

I'm still not sure about Sotomayor, most of the rulings of hers I read were on business and securities matters - and frankly that's not my strong suit. Of course being Second Circuit she would have seen a lot of those issues. Time will tell as far as she's concerned. But the last twenty years or so of packing the lower courts with relative ideologues doesn't bode well for the future. And don't hold your breath for anything worth writing home about with this one.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

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.

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.

The courts are not a debate hall but some place to judge cases based on the law and they have to be correct about what the law means. They don't decide what it means since that meaning was already established by the democratic process in the creation of the constitution and amendments. There should not be any politics involved in any decision because the politics of the law was already decided by the legislature so they are limited by what the legislature created. They just decide the cases based on the law that was created by others and they have to be correct about what the law means even before they decide to preside over a case.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

I am waiting to hear the chants of "STATES RIGHTS, STATES RIGHTS" by the Republicans on this issue.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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.

From what I understand of Obama's interpretation he's more of a pragmatist than anything, which suits me fine since that's the reading I tend to favor.

I'm still not sure about Sotomayor, most of the rulings of hers I read were on business and securities matters - and frankly that's not my strong suit. Of course being Second Circuit she would have seen a lot of those issues. Time will tell as far as she's concerned. But the last twenty years or so of packing the lower courts with relative ideologues doesn't bode well for the future. And don't hold your breath for anything worth writing home about with this one.

SC Justice appointees do not have to be Judges.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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.

The courts are not a debate hall but some place to judge cases based on the law and they have to be correct about what the law means. They don't decide what it means since that meaning was already established by the democratic process in the creation of the constitution and amendments. There should not be any politics involved in any decision because the politics of the law was already decided by the legislature so they are limited by what the legislature created. They just decide the cases based on the law that was created by others and they have to be correct about what the law means even before they decide to preside over a case.

Courts are debate halls, and opinions are what the courts issue. Opinions.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am waiting to hear the chants of "STATES RIGHTS, STATES RIGHTS" by the Republicans on this issue.

States Rights, has been a battle cry for ideologies on all sides. The principle is to be valued, even when the arguments may crawl out of the gutter and the toilets.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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.

From what I understand of Obama's interpretation he's more of a pragmatist than anything, which suits me fine since that's the reading I tend to favor.

I'm still not sure about Sotomayor, most of the rulings of hers I read were on business and securities matters - and frankly that's not my strong suit. Of course being Second Circuit she would have seen a lot of those issues. Time will tell as far as she's concerned. But the last twenty years or so of packing the lower courts with relative ideologues doesn't bode well for the future. And don't hold your breath for anything worth writing home about with this one.

Along with "SC Justice appointees do not have to be Judges." I meant to say, I think Sotomayor, is not all that much of a leftist or a progressive. She is a liberal with common sense. She is moderate in many of her views. It depends on what the issue is. I guess she is not really an ideologue.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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.

The courts are not a debate hall but some place to judge cases based on the law and they have to be correct about what the law means. They don't decide what it means since that meaning was already established by the democratic process in the creation of the constitution and amendments. There should not be any politics involved in any decision because the politics of the law was already decided by the legislature so they are limited by what the legislature created. They just decide the cases based on the law that was created by others and they have to be correct about what the law means even before they decide to preside over a case.

Along with saying "Courts are debate halls, and opinions are what the courts issue." I would like to think you'd have a sense of history and a grasp of reality. Politics has always been involved with the law. Political ideals and issues spill over into rulings.

There are SCOTUS rulings where the Justices speak of the need to keep public sentiment in mind...as is the nation ready for abortion, gay rights...and this is stuff conservatives have argued.