Supreme Court May Decide to Take up Gun Carry Case Tomorrow

[legaleagle_45]

Even though the Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right (Heller and McDonald), it's also made clear that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right which cannot be restrained in any way. In fact, it's said exactly the opposite: gun control short of an absolute ban is Constitutional.

Err, no they did not. LOL, dream on.

 

[Meister]

I don't know what is so difficult to understand about the word 'infringe.' Anything besides a 9-0 vote for gun rights would be an embarrassment. But the court lost all dignity after Obamacare.

Well, somehow, I would hope after Newtown, Roberts and Kennedy will join the sane justices on this issue.

Gotta love the gun nutters. They want to have unrestricted guns while the gun industry fights to retain the right to sell guns to the criminal and the insane.

Link to your evidence where the gun industry targets this specific demographic? I'll wait.

Joe has to reinvent the truth to make his arguement

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Just heard on the news, SCOTUS will not hear gun carry case.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Want to bet? This is from the Heller opinion, which McDonald restated:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Obviously, you do not know how to read a decision from SCOTUS. See if this makes any sense to you:

In those cases, “rational basis” is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms.

Id at 56

If it does not make any sense to you, there are 3 levels of scrutiny which SCOTUS applies when evaluating the constitutionality of a law. Rational basis is the standard employed when no fundamental right is involved or no suspect or quasii suspect class is singled out. Heightened scrutiny is employed when a quasi suspect class, such as age or gender is implicated or a non core area of a fundamental right is restricted. An example would be that free speech may be subject to time, place and manner restrictions which are content neutral, provide an alternate effective venue when those restricitons serve an important state interest and are properly confined so as to serve those important state interest, such as not allowing a march on the interstate freeway during rush hour. Strict scrutiny requires a compelling state interest which is tightly constrained in scope so as to serve only the compelling state interest.

SCOTUS specifically reject rational basis scrutiny in favor of either heightened scrutiny or strict scrutiny. So your assertion is totally bogus.

 

[bendog]

Want to bet? This is from the Heller opinion, which McDonald restated:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Obviously, you do not know how to read a decision from SCOTUS. See if this makes any sense to you:

In those cases, “rational basis” is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms.

Id at 56

If it does not make any sense to you, there are 3 levels of scrutiny which SCOTUS applies when evaluating the constitutionality of a law. Rational basis is the standard employed when no fundamental right is involved or no suspect or quasii suspect class is singled out. Heightened scrutiny is employed when a quasi suspect class, such as age or gender is implicated or a non core area of a fundamental right is restricted. An example would be that free speech may be subject to time, place and manner restrictions which are content neutral, provide an alternate effective venue when those restricitons serve an important state interest and are properly confined so as to serve those important state interest, such as not allowing a march on the interstate freeway during rush hour. Strict scrutiny requires a compelling state interest which is tightly constrained in scope so as to serve only the compelling state interest.

SCOTUS specifically reject rational basis scrutiny in favor of either heightened scrutiny or strict scrutiny. So your assertion is totally bogus.

Scalia says in the footnote rational basis is not the test, yet his examples of what regulation is permissible meet the rational test, and he does not apply anything more stringent to them. Basicaly it's left to another day.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 55
Opinion of the Court
arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.”

Is a background check the least intrusive means to keep guns from the mentally ill or felons? I have no idea. Obviously, is less than 100% effective, yet Scalia says sales can be regulated. Magazine capacity would not have a lot of impact on most murders in Chicago, yet unusual weapons can be restricted.

Perhaps the ambiguity is Scalia being ambiguous to these tests, and he got his biggest objective of an individual right with five votes, and decided to quit while he was ahead.

 

[paulitician]

NWO Globalists don't care about our Constitution. In fact, they despise it. And unfortunately, our Supreme Court is now bought & paid for. The NWO Globalist assholes own most of them. It's very sad.

 

[Oldguy]

Want to bet? This is from the Heller opinion, which McDonald restated:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Obviously, you do not know how to read a decision from SCOTUS. See if this makes any sense to you:

In those cases, “rational basis” is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms.

Id at 56

If it does not make any sense to you, there are 3 levels of scrutiny which SCOTUS applies when evaluating the constitutionality of a law. Rational basis is the standard employed when no fundamental right is involved or no suspect or quasii suspect class is singled out. Heightened scrutiny is employed when a quasi suspect class, such as age or gender is implicated or a non core area of a fundamental right is restricted. An example would be that free speech may be subject to time, place and manner restrictions which are content neutral, provide an alternate effective venue when those restricitons serve an important state interest and are properly confined so as to serve those important state interest, such as not allowing a march on the interstate freeway during rush hour. Strict scrutiny requires a compelling state interest which is tightly constrained in scope so as to serve only the compelling state interest.

SCOTUS specifically reject rational basis scrutiny in favor of either heightened scrutiny or strict scrutiny. So your assertion is totally bogus.

Yet, they clearly say: "For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.."

Upheld by who?

 

[Avorysuds]

Even though the Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right (Heller and McDonald), it's also made clear that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right which cannot be restrained in any way. In fact, it's said exactly the opposite: gun control short of an absolute ban is Constitutional.

So..even if the Court were to rule that we have the right to carry a firearm outside the home, that would not preclude restrictions being legislated to control that right for the common good.

In other words, it might turn out to be a pointless ruling.

Shocking, the Government (SC) finds it has the powers that the constitution clearly says it does not have.... Years later we get to see if they do as all Government does and expand this new power that Government gave themselves. My guess, like on Obamacare, is that Government sees it as constitutional to do away with the second amendment or greatly restrict the second amendment.

 

[Oldguy]

Want to bet? This is from the Heller opinion, which McDonald restated:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Obviously, you do not know how to read a decision from SCOTUS. See if this makes any sense to you:

In those cases, “rational basis” is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms.

Id at 56

If it does not make any sense to you, there are 3 levels of scrutiny which SCOTUS applies when evaluating the constitutionality of a law. Rational basis is the standard employed when no fundamental right is involved or no suspect or quasii suspect class is singled out. Heightened scrutiny is employed when a quasi suspect class, such as age or gender is implicated or a non core area of a fundamental right is restricted. An example would be that free speech may be subject to time, place and manner restrictions which are content neutral, provide an alternate effective venue when those restricitons serve an important state interest and are properly confined so as to serve those important state interest, such as not allowing a march on the interstate freeway during rush hour. Strict scrutiny requires a compelling state interest which is tightly constrained in scope so as to serve only the compelling state interest.

SCOTUS specifically reject rational basis scrutiny in favor of either heightened scrutiny or strict scrutiny. So your assertion is totally bogus.

Scalia says in the footnote rational basis is not the test, yet his examples of what regulation is permissible meet the rational test, and he does not apply anything more stringent to them. Basicaly it's left to another day.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 55
Opinion of the Court
arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.”

Is a background check the least intrusive means to keep guns from the mentally ill or felons? I have no idea. Obviously, is less than 100% effective, yet Scalia says sales can be regulated. Magazine capacity would not have a lot of impact on most murders in Chicago, yet unusual weapons can be restricted.

Perhaps the ambiguity is Scalia being ambiguous to these tests, and he got his biggest objective of an individual right with five votes, and decided to quit while he was ahead.

The Court is clearly saying that the right to keep and bear a firearm inside the home for personal protection is an individual right which cannot be abridged. In other words, "they" can't come and get your guns.

Yet, at the same time, the Court has once again reaffirmed that just about anything short of that is Constitutionally permissible without conflicting with the 2nd Amendment. Rules for concealed or open carry, the necessity of a license, mandatory training, fees and taxes on the purchase of a firearm, even maybe mandated liability insurance. None of these things are off the table Constitutionally.

Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is a background check the least intrusive means to keep guns from the mentally ill or felons? I have no idea. Obviously, is less than 100% effective...

Issues:

-There has been no establishment of a compelling interest in -preventing- criminals from getting guns, and while it sounds like a reasonable idea, the concept is, at best, fallacious because it is impossible for a law to prevent someone from breaking the law. Laws exist to create a means to punish those who commit acts outside social tolerance, and in a free society, we do not presume that everyone is going to commit a crime before we allow them to freely ecercise their rights.

-The means must not only be the least restrictive available but it must be effective -- else, the right is restricted to no good purpose. We are told every day about the terrors of gun violence, so it is clear, on its face, that the establishment of background checks has had little to no effect. Since it is apparently useles, there is no good purpose in so restricting the rights of the law abiding.

Magazine capacity would not have a lot of impact on most murders in Chicago, yet unusual weapons can be restricted.

There's nothing unusual about fireams that take hi-cap mags, and nothing unusual about the magazines themselves.

 

[paulitician]

Is a background check the least intrusive means to keep guns from the mentally ill or felons? I have no idea. Obviously, is less than 100% effective...

Issues:

-There has been no establishment of a compelling interest in -preventing- criminals from getting guns, and while it sounds like a reasonable idea, the concept is, at best, fallacious because it is impossible for a law to prevent someone from breaking the law. Laws exist to create a means to punish those to committ acts outside social tolerance, and in a free society, we do not presume that everyone is going to commit a crime before we allow them to freely ecercise their rights.

-The means must not only be the least restrictive available but it must be effective -- else, the right is restricted to no good purpose. We are told every day about the terrors of gun violence, so it is clear, on its face, that the establishment of background cheks has had little to no effect. Since it is apparently useles, there is no good purpose in so restricting the rights of the law abiding.

Magazine capacity would not have a lot of impact on most murders in Chicago, yet unusual weapons can be restricted.

There's nothing unusual about fireams that ca take hi-cap mags, and nothign unusual about the magazines themselves.

Great points, but i'm afraid their gonna go right over the Nanny/Police Staters' heads. Nice try though.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Court is clearly saying that the right to keep and bear a firearm inside the home for personal protection (and all other traditionally lawful purposes for a firearm) is an individual right which cannot be (infringed). In other words, "they" can't come and get your guns.

No... in other words, "they" cannot infringe upon your right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Yet, at the same time, the Court has once again reaffirmed that just about anything short of that is Constitutionally permissible without conflicting with the 2nd Amendment.

This is a lie, as previously demonstrated, and as proven beyond a doubt by the text of Heller itself.
It doesnt matter how many times you repeat this lie, it remains a lie.

Why is that so hard to accept?

Because it is a lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is a background check the least intrusive means to keep guns from the mentally ill or felons? I have no idea. Obviously, is less than 100% effective...

Issues:

-There has been no establishment of a compelling interest in -preventing- criminals from getting guns, and while it sounds like a reasonable idea, the concept is, at best, fallacious because it is impossible for a law to prevent someone from breaking the law. Laws exist to create a means to punish those to committ acts outside social tolerance, and in a free society, we do not presume that everyone is going to commit a crime before we allow them to freely ecercise their rights.

-The means must not only be the least restrictive available but it must be effective -- else, the right is restricted to no good purpose. We are told every day about the terrors of gun violence, so it is clear, on its face, that the establishment of background cheks has had little to no effect. Since it is apparently useles, there is no good purpose in so restricting the rights of the law abiding.

Magazine capacity would not have a lot of impact on most murders in Chicago, yet unusual weapons can be restricted.

There's nothing unusual about fireams that ca take hi-cap mags, and nothign unusual about the magazines themselves.

Great points, but i'm afraid their gonna go right over the Nanny/Police Staters' heads. Nice try though.

That's because the anti-gun loons cannot base their arguments on anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.