Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteRight now the 4th is about to become extinct.
Why don't you take your concerns for the 4th Amendment to another thread. This one is about the 2nd.
Funny since you are the one that post mostly about the 2nd and 4th rights, or do you only care to point out when other countries are losing the freedom the 4th gives us? Interesting enough when the 2nd came up in my 4th Amendment post I didn't say GTFO. The comparison was drawn there, so I am making it here. Fair is fair I would say.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
ChrisL 2
Quote
“The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws.
This is just stupid. Criminals arent going to waste time and money trying to change laws they dont care about, respect, or adhere to in the first place.
they will just continue to ignore them as before.
__
My mighty steed
My mighty steed
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote(do not assume I agree or disagree with your point cause that is NOT the point I am trying to make)
Do not assume I didn't support the 2nd either.I'm happy it's true to it's word now. We should have the same for all of them. Right now the 4th is about to become extinct.
I guess my point was more to, if 1 or the 4th or any of them for that matter, is all or nothing then should'nt they all be?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteI guess my point was more to, if 1 or the 4th or any of them for that matter, is all or nothing then should'nt they all be?
Works for me
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteI guess my point was more to, if 1 or the 4th or any of them for that matter, is all or nothing then should'nt they all be?
Works for me
How would you define what limits on any amendment would be ok?
I talk of limits of yelling "fire" in a theater or something similar. Or, do you look at that differently?
Dont get me wrong, I agree with you but dont you think limits will always be there? If so, the problem then becomes, WHO decides what those limits are.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
AWL71 0
Where are all the lefties? I thought they would be cheering this constitutionally backed decision. I guess things are a lot less "interesting" when the ruling is not to your liking.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
rushmc 23
"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it." — Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Quote
The words of a true idiot and hypocrite.
Interesting site to follow http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
Heller Discussion Board: “Clarity is in the Eye of the Beholder”
Thursday, June 26th, 2008 12:48 pm | Brian Sagona |
Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!
Below, Alan B. Morrison writes what is to be the first of a series of Discussion Board posts on today’s DC v. Heller decision. Alan is Special Counsel for the Fair Elections Legal Network and Co-Founder/Former Director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group.
Several things are clear and much is unclear.
This is a wonderful example of two groups of Justices looking at the same cases and history and coming to radically different conclusions. DC made all the arguments it could, and it could not get the fifth vote. No one on either side will be convinced by the other’s side analysis. Based on a quick reading, the most shocking aspect of Justice Scalia’s opinion is his dismissal of those who read the Court’s 1939 decision in Miller as supporting a militia-related reading of the Second Amendment: Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that” (p.49) even though many judges and scholars read it precisely that way. Scalia is persuasive in rejecting the notion that Miller should bind the Court in any way, but his dismissive tone as to a militia-based reading of Miller is indicative of the dismissive manner in which he rejects every argument from the other side as bordering on frivolous. It should also be noted that Justice Stevens says in the opening of his dissent that the answer is “clear” the other way! Looks like clarity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Because there were five votes for an individual rights based reading of the Second Amendment, I leave it to scholars to discuss that question. What is most important is what else the Court decided and what it left for another day.
The Court did strike down the ban on all handguns in the home, concluding, without any citation, that they are the most popular self-defense weapon (the District cited articles in “Guns & Ammo” magazine saying that rifles or shotguns are much more effective for those who know what they are doing? There is no mention of harm to family members, suicides or accidents: this part could have been written by the NRA. Justice Breyer’s dissent on this point is much too long to summarize here, but he takes into account a much broader range of interests than does the majority in reaching the opposite conclusion on the gun ban itself.
The Court also struck down the law that said all guns must be inoperable at all times, either by being unloaded or by a trigger lock. It rejected the argument that there was an implied exception for actual use for self-defense, which is probably an unfair way to read the law, but there is no question that the law is unclear and the District would have to clean it up even if it had won. The plaintiffs wanted the Court to tell the District lots more about what gun lock laws it could and could not enact, but the Court stuck to this one narrow aspect.
Three vital issues remain open: Does this apply only to the District & the Federal Government? (Scalia did not even mention an entire argument made by the District that the Second Amendment should not apply here because of the Seat of Government clause.) For gun-rights advocates, the District is small potatoes compared to getting the Second Amendment to apply to states & cities, and Scalia directly refused to take on that question, which will surely be raised very soon (look out Chicago and your gun ban).
Second, what standard of review will apply? Scalia rejects rational basis (note 27 page 56, which the District did not urge) and says that the District law falls under any other standard, without exactly saying why. The SG offered a fairly relaxed standard (except as applied to the DC law), but the Court did not bite. Federal laws regulating guns, and perhaps those increasing sentences for gun use, are likely to be challenged, whatever the standard and chance of success.
Third, what is the fate of other gun laws? Scalia mentions a number of them that he suggests are OK (felons, insane, certain locations) and says that they are illustrative, not exhaustive. But if strict scrutiny will be applied, which is at least hinted at in the rejection of rationale basis, why are all felons to be treated equally - what about Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby - are they really dangerous?
Note also the not-so-gentle chide of Justice Stevens at the conclusion of his dissent that majority was engaged in judicial activism and causing the courts to embark on a case by case determination of what gun laws will & will not survive.
Bottom line: looks like a full-employment decision for lots of gun lawyers and state, federal, and municipal attorneys - but not including me.
Even for those who disagree with the majority in Heller, there is one bright spot in the decision that the Second Amendment contains a private right to bear arms: we won’t have to do battle with the gun enthusiasts who would have immediately begun a campaign to amend the constitution if the dissent had prevailed."America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteWe are all the lefties? I thought they would be cheering this constitutionally backed decision. I guess things are a lot less "interesting" when the ruling is not to your liking.
Only time can heal the pain and pouting
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
JohnRich 4
QuoteWe
are all the lefties? I thought they would be cheering this constitutionally backed decision. I guess things are a lot less "interesting" when the ruling is not to your liking.
Liberal anti-gun weenies are crying in their cornflakes all over America.
And Obama, who said he supported the D.C. gun ban, is trying to figure out how to spin this decision, so that he doesn't look like a fool once again.
billvon 3,118
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> is all or nothing then should'nt they all be?
If you mean "we should defend them all" then definitely.
Let's hope the courts do for the fourth amendment what they did for the second today.
If you mean "we should defend them all" then definitely.
Let's hope the courts do for the fourth amendment what they did for the second today.
Last I checked I'm liberal and support this.
Also, not sure where Obama has looked like a fool on much, can't say the same about McCain who seems to have memory loss worse that Regan ever did. Gonna miss Russert calling him out on those moments.
Interesting enough is that this is is very anti-conservative as it's more big government telling the States what to do. I guess you are only conservative when it fits your opinions.
Also, not sure where Obama has looked like a fool on much, can't say the same about McCain who seems to have memory loss worse that Regan ever did. Gonna miss Russert calling him out on those moments.
Interesting enough is that this is is very anti-conservative as it's more big government telling the States what to do. I guess you are only conservative when it fits your opinions.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
rushmc 23
Quote> is all or nothing then should'nt they all be?
If you mean "we should defend them all" then definitely.
Let's hope the courts do for the fourth amendment what they did for the second today.
Tell me, since you always seem to "know", what DID I mean.
This is a sick dam tactic you like use
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Too bad the ACLU kept crapping on the 2nd rather than stick to their claimed mission. Made it impossible for many people in this thread to ever support them.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites