Gun Decision: More Questions...

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Heller endorsed bans on the carrying of concealed weapons, but said nothing about a right to carry weapons openly. Because the Second Amendment expressly protects the right to “bear” arms, as well as the right to “keep” arms, the text of the Constitution seems inconsistent with allowing the government to forbid both open and concealed carry of weapons. Such a ban would also be inconsistent with Heller’s emphasis on self-defense as the core of the Second Amendment right: most people are in much more danger of encountering dangerous criminals outside their homes than within them. But the issue remains open in the courts.

2. Heller endorsed bans on carrying weapons in “sensitive places,” but articulated no test for identifying such locations, beyond a mention of government buildings and schools. McDonald reaffirms this…

3. State and local jurisdictions, moreover, sometimes place very onerous administrative obstacles in the path of those who desire to keep or carry firearms. Such obstructionism may become more intense in those jurisdictions that would like to impose outright gun bans that the courts will no longer uphold."
SCOTUSblog Thomas’ concurrence on the Privileges or Immunities Clause

 

[JakeStarkey]

I happen to agree with the intent of the decision, but it is interesting that a conservative court had to issue a statist decision (yes, incorporation is a liberal concept, not a states' right concept). This should have been handled by the states, the same as abortion.

 

[Oddball]

What's so hard to understand about a federally guaranteed and protected right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dud, get being deliberately duddy. You know what incorporaton means. The decision invoked the 2d Amendment, an amend to prevent the Federal Government from infringing on a citizen's rights, to incorporate its provisions in state law. That, my friend, is a liberal maneuver. Next.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dud, get being deliberately duddy. You know what incorporaton means. The decision invoked the 2d Amendment, an amend to prevent the Federal Government from infringing on a citizen's rights, to incorporate its provisions in state law. That, my friend, is a liberal maneuver. Next.

Two words, 14th amendment. Read it and admit you are wrong, you will feel better.

 

[Oddball]

Dud, get being deliberately duddy. You know what incorporaton means. The decision invoked the 2d Amendment, an amend to prevent the Federal Government from infringing on a citizen's rights, to incorporate its provisions in state law. That, my friend, is a liberal maneuver. Next.

Wrong.

You'd squeal "free press" like a stuck librul if your state tried to control the local newspapers, the way states and localities have attempted to disarm their citizenry.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I happen to agree with the intent of the decision, but it is interesting that a conservative court had to issue a statist decision (yes, incorporation is a liberal concept, not a states' right concept). This should have been handled by the states, the same as abortion.

Ya' know what...let's continue what passes for a thought in your post, and make this political.

1. "Outside of the killings, we have one of the lowest crime rates in the country." - Marion Barry, mayor of Washington, D.C.

2. "The more killing and homicides you have, the more havoc it prevents." - Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley

3. "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." - Diane Feinstein, who carried a concealed weapon after claiming to be the target of a terrorist group

4. "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion ..." Barack Obama

5."The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says." - Bill Clinton quoting The Gettysburg Address during a 1996 campaign stop

6. "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." Sec'y of State Clinton


Let me know if you need more Democrat wisdom...

 

[Oddball]

#5 is the Gettysburg Address, not the DoI.

 

[52ndStreet]

The Supreme Court is correcting a grave error that States, and certain City governments have been making for many years now. Many of these anti hand gun States, like New York City , Washington D.C
have been infringing on Americans second amendment right to "Keep and bear arms". "This right shall
not be infringed upon." This ruling is long over due. Now maybe all those gun control freaks and nuts,
will find another issue to ask for a ban on.!!?
Blanket bans are wrong.!!

 

[Big Fitz]

Jason Lewis just pointed out the hypocrisy of the left very well today. Change the words "Gun Ownership" to "Abortion" and you will flip the entire dialogue on the left who refuse to let states control their own abortion laws... or welfare laws... or Health Care laws...

The funny thing is of course, those three other things aren't rights, Gun Ownership is.

huh... strange isn't it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC, don't post if you are not going to make sense, please. It makes you look stupid. Dud, talk to the fact, not to a false herring. When you far right loonies try to argue a point you can't win, you spin off in all sorts of directions. If you agree with the decision, then you agree with statist behavior in the Court. You can't have it both ways. I am going to leave it that way for awhile so you guys can think clearly. Please don't knee jerk as usual. Think before you speak.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I happen to agree with the intent of the decision, but it is interesting that a conservative court had to issue a statist decision (yes, incorporation is a liberal concept, not a states' right concept). This should have been handled by the states, the same as abortion.

To comment directly on your incorrect analysis, the bill of rights includes
1st Amendment: Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly and Petition
2nd Amendment: Right to keep and bear arms
3rd Amendment: Quartering of soldiers
4th Amendment: Unreasonable searches; warrents
5th Amendment: Individuals rights: self-incrimination, grand jury, double jeopardy, eminent domain, due process.
6th Amendment: Rights at and right to a trial
7th Amendment: Trials by jury in civil cases.
8th Amendment: Bail; cruel and unusual punishment
9th Amendment: Enumerated rights and assumed rights (privacy?)
10th Amendment: Protects powers of the States, not individuals

Prior to the McDonald Decision, only the second amendment had not been incorporated. Please document or retract your view that the terms liberal or conservative apply to the practice of incorporation.

Further, you will notice that abortion does not appear in the bill of rights, and so there is no basis for suggesting that it is on a par with the right to bear arms.

Nor does 'statist' apply.

The situation suggests that the signers of the Constitution meant that the bill of rights named specific rights that Americans had, no matter where they lived. Unlike abortion, which could have been dealt with, in the manner President Reagan suggested, by 'voting with their feet.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, don't post if you are not going to make sense, please. It makes you look stupid. Dud, talk to the fact, not to a false herring. When you far right loonies try to argue a point you can't win, you spin off in all sorts of directions. If you agree with the decision, then you agree with statist behavior in the Court. You can't have it both ways. I am going to leave it that way for awhile so you guys can think clearly. Please don't knee jerk as usual. Think before you speak.

Jakey-boy, just because you didn't understand the post, doesn't mean that it didn't make sense.

But, since...as usual, you require a remedial education, here it is.

1. Using your usual tortuous thought processes, you have attempted to show a brilliant and startlingly new way of looking at the incorporation process.
It fell flat.

2. You seem not to understand the use of the term 'liberal.'

3. Wishing to appear...intelligent(?)...a first? you threw in liberal, statist, and other terms which- in this connection are syncretic.

4. I simply gave several examples of other incoherent remarks by liberals, in connection to guns. Get it now?

So, in short, Jakey, you have, once again been guilty of the ID-ten-T category of error.

 

[PoliticalChic]

#5 is the Gettysburg Address, not the DoI.

It seems everybody knew that except President Clinton...

can you imagine if Vice President Quayle had said it.

 

[lawbuff]

Prior to the McDonald Decision, only the second amendment had not been incorporated.

The 3rd has never been incorporated, as it has never been challenged. The 7th also I believe.

Some provisions still do not apply, that is, NOT incorporated by the US SC.

States do not have to Indict by Grand Jury. The Vicinage clause is not incorporated. The Excessive bail provision of the 8th AM has not been to date.

The Original Bill of Rights, as submitted to the states, is enshrined in the Archives in DC, all 12 Articles. A sight to behold.

 

[lawbuff]

#5 is the Gettysburg Address, not the DoI.

W.T. Page also borrowed the phrase for the American's Creed, along with other famous words.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Prior to the McDonald Decision, only the second amendment had not been incorporated.

The 3rd has never been incorporated, as it has never been challenged. The 7th also I believe.

Some provisions still do not apply, that is, NOT incorporated by the US SC.

States do not have to Indict by Grand Jury. The Vicinage clause is not incorporated. The Excessive bail provision of the 8th AM has not been to date.

The Original Bill of Rights, as submitted to the states, is enshrined in the Archives in DC, all 12 Articles. A sight to behold.

I relied on the following...

"The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not specifically extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which involves interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to read that no state can deprive its citizens of federally guaranteed rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
CNSNews.com - Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment


After ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was the U.S. Constitution that provided the basic protections to an individual's civil rights, while state constitutions provided various additional protections, such as an explicit right to privacy and rights for crime victims. Many legal scholars believe that such provisions in state constitutions provide an important second level of protections of individual rights in areas such as disability laws and privacy rights, areas in which federal courts have tended to narrow such rights under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
State constitution: Information from Answers.com


But I see your rectitude in the following:
In Adamson v California (332 U.S. 46 [1947]), the Supreme Court began to accept the argument that the 14th Amendment requires the states to follow the protections of the Bill of Rights.
Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated (notable exceptions are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment).
Constitutional Topic: The Bill of Rights - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


Thank you.

 

[lawbuff]

Thank you.

No charge!!

My particular area of study is the 4th AM. I am by no means an authority, far from it, but it is my personal favorite.

 

[ConHog]

Thank you.

No charge!!

My particular area of study is the 4th AM. I am by no means an authority, far from it, but it is my personal favorite.

My favorite is the first, which is of course totally misunderstood, even more so than the 2nd.

 

[lawbuff]

Thank you.

No charge!!

My particular area of study is the 4th AM. I am by no means an authority, far from it, but it is my personal favorite.

My favorite is the first, which is of course totally misunderstood, even more so than the 2nd.

I took criminal law at College for my Major and "attempt" to keep up with it.

Criminal law and the 4th AM have always fascinated me. What police are permitted to do, legally that is. The average person is not aware of such.

The 1st encompasses more than 1 Liberty, as we all know. The SC has transformed the word "speech", into "Symbolic speech" and "Freedom of expression".

One of the strangest 1st cases I have ever run across was based on 42 USC 666.

Complainants asserted forcing them to obtain a SS# to get a Driver's license violated the Free Exercise clause, as the Mark of the Beast was a part of the US Code??