Could Gun Rights Opinions Change This Quickly?

[TomJ]

By definition, SCOTUS decisions are the law, are they not? How can the law fly in the face of the law?

I think we're getting off topic here, but the answer to your question is that Congress makes laws, not the judiciary. The judiciary interprets those laws in the event of a dispute. Once they rule on the law in question that ruling or interpretation then becomes law. That does not mean their rulings are correct. When laws are clearly written and unambiguous and SCOTUS twists them in a way that does not reflect congress' intent, they fly in the face of that law. To get back on topic, that is the point I was making in regards to gun rights.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

"OK, US News and World Report has published an article on gun control that calls the recent event "The tipping point" in favor of gun control. "

Cite/link? And what's their basis for that? The polling that I have seen indicates that while 40-45% really want more gun control, the majority don't. USN&WR can declare a "tipping point" if they want - the question is what proof do they have? Their subjective feelings (or the feelings of their columnist) aren't proof.

It was on the Yahoo news website. Sorry, I'm not savvy enough to do the link thing.

 

[JRH6856]

I think we're getting off topic here, but the answer to your question is that Congress makes laws, not the judiciary. The judiciary interprets those laws in the event of a dispute. Once they rule on the law in question that ruling or interpretation then becomes law. That does not mean their rulings are correct. When laws are clearly written and unambiguous and SCOTUS twists them in a way that does not reflect congress' intent, they fly in the face of that law. To get back on topic, that is the point I was making in regards to gun rights.

I saw an analysis this week that said the current SCOTUS has 4 reliable liberal/progressives, 3 reliable conservatives, a moderate chief justice and Kennedy who seems to heavily favor personal liberty but otherwise goes with his gut. This makes Kennedy the unpredictable deciding vote in most 5-4 decisions. But if he does favor personal liberty (in cases with personal liberty as the primary issue), couching gun rights in those terms would probably be the best way to go while he is on the court.

 

[goon]

I don't know if every judge, or if any judge, is ever entirely above politics.
People are people, but that just is what it is I guess.
Right or wrong, SCOTUS justices aren't at all impacted by our THR discussions.

The flip side is that when push comes to shove, there really isn't much written into law that can't get written out of law if enough people work hard enough at it.


And... I think still the whole premise of the thread is off. The two situations are quite different.

 

[Red Wind]

It was on the Yahoo news website. Sorry, I'm not savvy enough to do the link thing.

Here is the link to the US News and World Report, "Tipping Point" article:

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...-control-advocates-see-success-on-the-horizon

Just after the horrific slaughter of nine African-American churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, President Barack Obama openly doubted the latest shooting spree would change things in a nation awash in guns – and with lawmakers so controlled by National Rifle Association that the massacre of 20 suburban first-graders in a Connecticut elementary school more than two years ago couldn't get them to act.

 

[X-Rap]

The "tipping point" is the important factor since a relatively small percentage of the population that is highly committed, funded and motivated can turn things pretty quickly and often before the opposing faction can react especially if some of those highly motivated are in positions of power.
I'd use the NRA as an example in the positive, there is a high number of members and they carry a lot of stoke but are small in proportion to the population.
If there ever gets to be an anti gun organization or one or more of the other "social change" groups morph into one powerful lobby as big or bigger than the NRA watch out because the 2A friendly majority in congress will fold overnight.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

Thank you for providing the link R W.

 

[Red Wind]

You're very welcome, Shanghai. Happy Independence Day tomorrow!

 

[JRH6856]

The "tipping point" is the important factor since a repetitively small percentage of the population that is highly committed, funded and motivated can turn things pretty quickly and often before the opposing faction can react especially if some of those highly motivated are in positions of power.
I'd use the NRA as an example in the positive, there is a high number of members and they carry a lot of stoke but are small in proportion to the population.
If there ever gets to be an anti gun organization or one or more of the other "social change" groups morph into one powerful lobby as big or bigger than the NRA watch out because the 2A friendly majority in congress will fold overnight.

^ This.

And it is exactly the kind of influence Bloomberg keeps trying to buy. He is trying to silence other organizations and make his the dominant voice for gun control and he has been fairly successful in that. But it takes more than dollars. It takes that critical mass of public support that he hasn't managed to attract...yet.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

And a Happy Independence Day to you R W .

 

[JSH1]

By definition, SCOTUS decisions are the law, are they not? How can the law fly in the face of the law?

Yes, as laid out in the constitution. Some people have trouble with this and believe their personal opinion trumps the Supreme Court.

 

[Lord Teapot]

Yes, as laid out in the constitution. Some people have trouble with this and believe their personal opinion trumps the Supreme Court.

the founding fathers were among such men who believed their personal opinions trumped the powers that be

 

[JRH6856]

the founding fathers were among such men who believed their personal opinions trumped the powers that be

An interesting quote from the 1st paragraph of a column by George Will in today's Dallas Morning News:

In 1824, in retirement 37 years after serving as the Constitutional Convention’s prime mover, James Madison, 73, noted that the 1787 “language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders.” He knew that the purport of the text would evolve “with
the changeable meaning of the words composing it.”​

 

[JSH1]

the founding fathers were among such men who believed their personal opinions trumped the powers that be

Yes they did. They were unhappy with current law, lead an armed revolution, won, and then wrote a new set of laws. Those laws say the Supreme Court gets the final say on what laws are and are not constitutional and the correct interpretation of the law.

Thats how it will be until someone changes the rules.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Those laws say the Supreme Court gets the final say on what laws are and are not constitutional and the correct interpretation of the law.

O really? Could you point out where that is written in the Constitution?

 

[1911 guy]

Revisionist history much?

The founders considered themselves English citizens right up until the revolution. They revolted because they were being denied the rights due them under English Common Law. This is why there were many petitions the the crown before revolution.

As I understand the intent of the last few posts, I agree with the position that Congress makes laws. If challenged, they go the SCOTUS and can be overturned on Constitutional grounds. This is why, even in the Heller decision, we had discussion about precedent, citation from the court on original intent, etc.

 

[barnbwt]

Madison was obviously one of these 'living document' types, which seems ironic considering he helped write the dang thing, but we also have to remember this was during the turbulent boot up and debugging phase. It'd have been nice if he had insisted on modifying the document through the proper channels, because we'd likely have gotten an amendment that not only directs the Court to resolve issues with the Constitution, but gives specific directions to the justices for their deliberation (literal, inferred, or pragmatic reading). Alas, claiming undelegated powers from the congress through legal opinion was far easier (hard to blame him)

"By definition, SCOTUS decisions are the law, are they not? How can the law fly in the face of the law?"
Our founding documents are quite clear on the universality of 'natural rights,' intrinsic to the human condition. The law flies in the face of natural law when it is lawless. Further, the primary distinction of Protestantism among the founders and colonies from Catholicism was that it was a decentralized literary faith; it relied upon independent individuals (or parishes, at least) reading the source document of the faith in their native tongue and finding their own interpretation from it. I think the plain writing, short length, and public display & reproduction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ultimately intended for the same purpose.

TCB

 

[Robert]

This has drifted off course. Time to call it a day.