Quantcast

Time for SCOTUS to step into the fray

Discussion in 'Legal' started by RETG, Dec 9, 2018.

  1. RETG

    RETG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    409
    Location:
    Somewhere in Idaho
  2. tommy.duncan

    tommy.duncan Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    627
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Awesome Article.

    I hope SCOTUS steps in!!
     
  3. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,514
    Location:
    Virginia
    The lower courts are basing their antigun decisions on language in the Heller case. Thank you, Justice Scalia.

    The time is not yet ripe for the Supreme Court to hear another gun case. Better to have silence from the Court than an adverse decision. And with Chief Justice Roberts taking Kennedy's place as the "swing justice," an adverse decision is very likely.
     
    hso, BSA1, Phaedrus/69 and 1 other person like this.
  4. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,362
    Location:
    CAAZ
    IMO, the current make up of SCOTUS is more ripe now, certainly not less ripe, than it has been for a quite a long time.
     
  5. Texas10mm

    Texas10mm Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,434
    The Second Amendment’s core is the right to keep weapons for defending oneself and one’s family in one’s home.

    This is what scares me. It's in the dissenting opinion.

    The Second Amendment's core is the right to keep and bear weapons. It's not limited to one's home.
     
    adcoch1, Harvie, Phaedrus/69 and 3 others like this.
  6. Mousegun

    Mousegun Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    613
  7. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,514
    Location:
    Virginia
    More ripe, but not enough ripe.
     
    JTHunter likes this.
  8. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,514
    Location:
    Virginia
    You and I may say that the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the general public to keep military weapons, but that's not what the Supreme Court says. The practical truth is that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. The actual holding of the Heller case (the leading Supreme Court 2nd Amendment case) is that Heller could keep a loaded handgun in his home for self-defense. Nothing more can be inferred. On the contrary -- Justice Scalia sprinkled his opinion with plenty of dicta that can be used to support all sorts of gun control.
     
    CoalTrain49 likes this.
  9. The Liberal

    The Liberal member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    79
    All rights are subject to limits. I personally believe that the gun community has made a ‘deal with the devil’ by allying with the conservative Republicans and alienating the liberals and Democrats. Like it or not, we’re all members of American society, and our tools (firearms) have been frequently used to deadly effect to massacre our fellow citizens en made- and our community only demands more gun rights, less oversight and less accountability. We argue over shades of the 2A to preserve our rights while parents plant their kids in the cemeteries and people learn from their friends about how to survive mass shootings on Twitter. We’re arguing against perception with a history of dubious accuracy and tying all of our rights and reputations onto supporting the unsupportable.

    If we’re ever going to get a favorable SCOTUS for the 2A, it’s now. Because the power of the GOP is not likely to last and we really don’t want a legal, restrictive, overreaching, punitive gun control scheme passing constitutional muster and becoming the law of the land. That’s a lot more likely to happen with a Democratic government than a GOP one.
     
    roscoe likes this.
  10. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    5,808
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    The first BOLD is the result of the second BOLD. I wish the democrats would support and defend the second amendment, but the bulk of them do not, and the most extreme of them are talking confiscation ( Rep. Eric Swalwell, Ca.). Even Republicans are often untrustworthy.
    Sorry, the politicians "make their own beds" on this issue, I support only those who best represent my position.
     
    easy, George Dickel and Texas10mm like this.
  11. The Liberal

    The Liberal member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    79
    Without getting too political, why would a Democrat support gun rights when the gun community’s money, focus and momentum are all already against them?
     
  12. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,514
    Location:
    Virginia
    This started out as a Supreme Court thread and it's turning into a political thread. It's true that the Supreme Court can hardly be divorced from politics, but I'd rather focus on the narrower, legal issues than the broader issues. The key thing here is the timing of potential gun cases.
     
    Officers'Wife likes this.
  13. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    3,970
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    Yeah, we don't need anymore of those great RKBA decisions. I say let sleeping dogs lie.
     
  14. John_R

    John_R Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2017
    Messages:
    302
    Location:
    Florida
    What does “a well-regulated militia” have to do with defending your house from crack-heads?

    We are ruled by idiots.
     
    adcoch1 and Texas10mm like this.
  15. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,514
    Location:
    Virginia
    Scalia explained that one away. According to him, the militia is mentioned in the "prefatory" clause that has no "operative" effect. In other words, a nullity. He seemed to be worried that if we started talking about the meaning of the militia, it would give validity to "insurrectionist" tendencies. (Or else give validity to the minority view on the Court, which was that the militia was the National Guard, and that therefore the RKBA was a right of the government, and not of individuals.)

    If the "militia" was given its 18th century meaning, that is, that the militia was all the people, the inevitable result would be that the general public would have the right to own machine guns and other military weapons. This was a result that Scalia (and even more so, Justice Kennedy) was deathly afraid of. In this sense, then, Scalia was not an "originalist," but rather, someone driven by results. In no way different from the liberal justices.
     
    IlikeSA and John_R like this.
  16. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,362
    Location:
    CAAZ

    The rulings have been favorable in the most recent cases spanning over a decade. With the current makeup that's even more ripe, we should enjoy even more favorable rulings given the right cases.

    Let's not waste opportunity by waiting for a state of ripey-ness that may never be achievable.
     
    John_R likes this.
  17. John_R

    John_R Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2017
    Messages:
    302
    Location:
    Florida
    I’m reminded of all the “modern” self-appointed religious experts who claim to have an exclusive insight into the true meaning of Biblical scripture. That’s how we got “Liberation Theology,” more or less. I read that the KGB made that up as a way to undermine the West, and convinced Latin American clergy that it was the truth. And that’s how we ended up with a Marxist Pope.

    We can’t read the explanatory material written by the Bible’s original authors to understand what they had in mind, but we can read the actual intentions of the Constitution’s authors. To pretend they have no bearing on the 2A’s meaning is, to me, tantamount to treason.

    Even Building Codes have official supplemental interpretations when the application isn’t clear.
     
    adcoch1, poboy6 and P5 Guy like this.
  18. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,514
    Location:
    Virginia
    That all presupposes that Chief Justice Roberts would rule in favor of gun rights. But this is a man who puts the institutional standing of the Court ahead of every other consideration. The man who found a way to uphold Obamacare will find a way to uphold an AWB. He's not going to buck what he thinks is the tide of history. Bottom line: we need at least one more pro-2A justice before risking taking an important case to the Court.
     
    BSA1 and Texas10mm like this.
  19. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    5,808
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama

    Uh ..... maybe to WIN support from the gun community?

    I think the democrats/liberals pretty much went against the 2A, and that resulted in the gun community turning against them.
    John Fitzgerald Kennedy was an N. R. A. member and pretty pro gun. Do you think Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Eric Swalwell or Charles Schumer have any sympathies with the N. R. A.?
    I realize this is a generalization ....dems against the 2A vs. Republicans for it. As governor, Ronald Reagan signed antigun legislation in California.
    But in general, many dems are for gun bans.
    Republicans ..... just keep your eyes on them. Some of them tend to be ..... "flexible."
     
    George Dickel likes this.
  20. DeepSouth

    DeepSouth Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,488
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie
    I wouldn’t be so sure, if a certain anti-gun party gets its way the court will be stacked with corresponding anti-gun Judges.
    https://freebeacon.com/politics/dncs-perez-joins-liberal-activists-hoping-pack-supreme-court/
     
  21. Stevie-Ray

    Stevie-Ray Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    Mitchi-gun, the Sunrise Side
    As James Buckley says, Article I, section 8, clause 16 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, which clearly indicates a quite different intention for the Second Amendment.

    But JFK was a conservative. There used to be such a thing as conservative democrats. I don't think there's even moderate ones now.
     
  22. The Liberal

    The Liberal member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    79
    I like firearms. A lot. I own and operate them (safely and legally). I carry for defense and I train. But I’ve also had many years to mature, to educate myself and train, and learn moderation. And I can’t help but think that there’s something missing from the pro-2A argument that everyone should have easy access to everything (in its purest form). All rights have limits, for good reason. I think we can mostly agree on this site that an individual should not be allowed to possess certain weaponry that poses an unreasonable threat to the public, like grenades, without some extremely strict scrutiny. So we accept that there are lines and limits. Where they fall is the question, and to me, that’s not really a judicial question. It’s a legislative and economic one.
     
  23. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,514
    Location:
    Virginia
    The "2nd Amendment militia" is different from the "Article I militia." In case of a conflict, the 2nd Amendment definition, being a later enactment, would control. If we postulate that the "2nd Amendment militia" is universal (and the writings of the Founding Fathers so indicate), then the "Article I militia" is a subset of that.
    As a 15 year old, I worked as a volunteer in JFK's 1960 campaign. To say that JFK was a conservative -- by the standards of the time -- is laughable. In Texas, as in much of the South, there were actually three parties: the liberal Democrats, the conservative Democrats, and the Republicans. LBJ was more or less representative of the conservative Democrats, and that is why he was chosen by JFK, to "balance the ticket." Of course LBJ was the one who later pushed for the Gun Control Act of 1968. The gun issue in those days did not break down along ideological lines.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2018
    The Liberal likes this.
  24. The Liberal

    The Liberal member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    79
    Exactly. Now, though, guns are one of the defining features of ideological purity. And that means that our rights are subject to delineation by the politicians we collectively choose based on their expressed views.
     
  25. John_R

    John_R Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2017
    Messages:
    302
    Location:
    Florida
    The 2A militia is clearly "The People" as mentioned in the operative clause. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed, not the right of the militia.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice