Court shot down voter-approved ban

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by mattskramer, Apr 10, 2008.

  1. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL

    The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

    How do conservatives come to terms, intellectually and logically, with this? Conservatives, when debating policy issues like abortion and gay marriage (thinking that the general public is against it), would often claim that we should let the public decided. They would say that it is wrong for judges to legislate from the bench. Many would even say that the elected officials need not vote on some issues but let there be a direct vote from the public.

    Well, unless I don’t understand the article, the public did vote on the gun issue. The citizenry decided to restrict gun rights. The courts overturned the will of the people. I’d like an explanation, particularly from pro-gun-rights groups. Yes-or-No: did the courts do the right thing by rejecting the voter-approved bad?
     
  2. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726

    the vote against the measure was unanimous where the Supreme Court Justices were concerned. I don't really see where confusion of the position of conservatives is warranted. The stance of the judges in both cases was that such a proposition was over the states power.

    While the judges were not in any way addressing the second ammendment I would say that such a proposition which states it ban all gun ownership in SF would quite clearly be a violation of the 2nd ammendment as it is currently interpreted. If SF doesn't want guns then they some how will have to change the constitution.

    While most conservatives would indeed want to hear the people speak via their vote, we're also pretty staunch constitutionalists.
     
  3. hjmick
    Offline

    hjmick Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    16,179
    Thanks Received:
    4,680
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +7,122
    Did you read the article you linked? The answers to your question are contained in the body of the story:

    So, in answer to your question, "Did the courts do the right thing by rejecting the voter-approved ban?"

    Yes, based on state law, they did the right thing.
     
  4. doeton
    Offline

    doeton Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,213
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +65
    :lol:

    more like because the majority should not have the ability to remove the rights of the minority.

    but because the court said so or cause it's in the constitution are also answers i suppose:eusa_dance: ...
     
  5. hjmick
    Offline

    hjmick Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    16,179
    Thanks Received:
    4,680
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +7,122
    Oh sure, there is that...
     
  6. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,405
    Thanks Received:
    12,697
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,830
    That sounds right.
     
  7. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    Dude, what the heck are you doing living in Texas? You need to move to San Fran...you'd fit right in. :lol:
     
  8. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,117
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,492
    Simple.
    The public, directly or indicrectly, cannot decide to violate rights protected by the Constitution.
     
  9. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,574
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,989
    Not having read the thread I will respond that the 2nd Amendment applies. The people do not have the right to vote in total bans or excessive restrictions on things covered by the Bill of Rights. Unless you think it is ok if Joyce gets a majority in his town to vote that Blacks should be banned.
     
  10. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    15,508
    Thanks Received:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,380
    It sure is great living down here in gun loving Texas where we don't have to worry about our guns being banned. If some moronic judge tried to even introduce legislation to ban guns the hounds of hell would be unleashed upon him or her.
     

Share This Page