Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Union of American Socialist Republics
    Posts
    3,798

    Supreme Court and 2nd Amendment case

    SCOTUSblog Analysis: 2d Amendment extension likely



    IMO, the Constitution is the highest law of the land. That law states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The several states agreed to honor the Constitution as the highest law of the land. IMO, the several states cannot restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.



    I'm not sure what they're arguing about.
    Neal P. Murphy
    Salem, Virg.

    Anger and intolerance are the twin enemies of correct understading. -- Mohandas Ghandi
    When a thing is true, there is no need to use any arguments to substantiate it. -- Vinoba Bhave

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    6 miles from Solon, IA
    Posts
    6,165
    Far too much molehill-into-mountain B. S.

    Just what word in "Shall not be infringed" gives them the most difficulty in comprehending?

    For jackasses who fancy their intellect far beyond mere mortals, this is typical courtroom fare I suppose, and I would like to refer your memory to Bill Clinton actually making a legal defense out of what the definition of "is" is, in case you doubt how inane these "intellectuals" can be, but, thankfully, the Constitution was written for US, not them.

    And We the People can read, too. *


    *(with the usual exception made for those victims of the Kalifornia education system, of course)
    |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ||____
    | Keep n Truckin !!! ||""'|""\___,
    |__________________||__|__|__|):
    |(@)(@)""""""""""""|(@)(@)***|(@)

    '96 ex-cab 4x4 5-speed; Ron Paul bumper sticker
    Searching for Bigfoot (pickup camper) Let me know if you spot one.
    Scott

  3. #3

    The Second Amendment and the States

    An interesting comment on the subject. I posted the whole thing since WSJ limits access to subscribers.
    Quote Originally Posted by WSJ dated 3/2
    Imagine you are a visitor from another planet reading the U. S. Constitution. You come to the 14th Amendment, where it says: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. " Might you not think this must be a pretty important provision?



    Now suppose you are told that, for over 135 years, the Supreme Court has, with one exception, entirely ignored that language. Might you question whether Supreme Court justices were bound by the written Constitution? Had you been seated in the Supreme Court yesterday to hear oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, your suspicions might well have been confirmed.



    McDonald is a constitutional challenge to a ban on handguns in the City of Chicago that resembles the gun ban in the District of Columbia that the Supreme Court struck down two years ago. In D. C. v. Heller, the Court held that banning all handguns violated an individual right to right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. Because the Second Amendment only applies directly to the federal government, however, Heller was just the first shoe to drop. The next question was whether the individual right to arms also applies to the states.



    Since the 1890s, the Supreme Court has been "selectively incorporating" the Bill of Rights piecemeal into the 14th Amendment via that amendment's Due Process Clause. So that would be the most obvious way to apply the right to keep and bear arms to the states. But that poses a challenge.



    The Due Process Clause reads: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. " Using this language to protect substantive rights has long been controversial.



    First of all, "due process" sounds procedural not substantive. The Court has also used "substantive due process" to protect unenumerated rights it deems to be fundamental, such as the right to privacy. Just where in the text of the Due Process Clause is this right? For this reason, "due process" has long been criticized by conservatives as a route to unfettered judicial discretion.



    But what about the clause protecting the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"? The language was made part of the 14th Amendment (adopted in 1868) to deal with the problem of Southern states egregiously violating the rights of freed black slaves and white unionists—including disarming returning soldiers and any other blacks who sought to protect themselves from the terrorist violence being unleashed against them. Actually, the right to keep and bear arms was among the most frequently mentioned privilege of citizens when the amendment was being considered in Congress.



    The evidence is clear that the privileges or immunities of citizens included those rights in the Bill of Rights. As Michigan's Sen. Jacob Howard explained to the Senate, these privileges or immunities included, among others, "the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as . . . the right to keep and to bear arms. "



    In contrast, no one thought the language of the Due Process Clause included a right to arms. On this point there is consensus among constitutional scholars whether left, right or libertarian. Nevertheless, in the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases, the Reconstruction-era Supreme Court essentially eliminated the Privileges or Immunities Clause from the Constitution by holding it only protected purely national rights, like the right to be protected while on the high seas. Since then, other than a case involving a right to interstate travel, the Court has never used the Privileges or Immunities Clause.



    Judging by yesterday's oral argument, the Supreme Court is afraid to revisit that 1873 decision for fear of opening a can of worms. Chief Justice John Roberts began the questioning by invoking the heavy burden on anyone seeking to reverse Slaughter-House. Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the Privileges or Immunities Clause as the "darling of the professoriate," a reference not intended as a compliment.



    Noticeably absent was any question—not one—by any justice challenging the historical evidence that the right to keep and bear arms was among those included in the Privileges or Immunities Clause. For that matter, no justice seemed at all interested in the original meaning of any aspect of the 14th Amendment. (As is his practice, Justice Clarence Thomas, the one justice who has expressed sympathy for reviving the Privileges or Immunities Clause, asked no questions. )



    So what did the justices discuss? In a revealing early question, Justice Scalia asked whether it isn't "easier" just to use the Due Process Clause.



    What followed was nearly an hour-long discussion between the Court and lawyers about whether or not a right to arms was "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" and whether something else should be the test of whether a right is "fundamental. " Should rights spelled out in the Constitution's text be treated differently from unenumerated ones? How much of the right to keep and bear arms is applicable to the states? The entire colloquy was unmoored from the text and history of the 14th Amendment.



    In other words, the justices became lost amid their own formulations, demonstrating by their wandering discussion that using substantive due process as a way of deciding what rights in the Bill of Rights get protection against the states ("incorporated") is really, really hard. Not only do they have to decide, all on their own, what is in or out, they also have to adopt the criteria by which to make this decision.



    In response, Justice Scalia insisted that the right to keep and bear arms is right there in the text, which of course is true. But so too is the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which, unlike the Court's due process jurisprudence, has a historical meaning that helps define and limit the rights it was meant to protect.



    For example, apart from personal liberties in the Bill of Rights, we know that the Civil War-era congressional Republicans were trying to constitutionally protect the rights enumerated in their Civil Rights Bill of 1866. This legislation listed the rights "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. " Yet these are now considered "economic" liberties, which the Court has been loath to protect since the New Deal. This may also explain why yesterday it wanted to ignore text and history.



    At the McDonald argument, it seemed obvious that five or more justices will vote to apply the Second Amendment to the states. This would be a great victory for gun rights—one that until a few years ago would have been unimaginable. But it was also obvious that most were deeply afraid of following a text whose original meaning might lead them where they do not want to go. When it came to following the written Constitution, a visitor from another planet would not, I suspect, have been very impressed.



    Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown and the author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty" (Princeton 2005).
    This guy seems to think they'll get it right for the wrong reasons.
    04.5 2500 Laramie SB QC 4x4, 48RE w/ 3.73, KORE & 315's, caravan shell w/ line-x
    59 W300M
    backup-83 cj-7

  4. #4
    I think Barnett is right on target with his assessment.
    Mike Ellis

    '97 Club Cab 3500, 5 spd, 3.54 gears, Camper/Tow package, turn down gooseneck, Line-X bedliner, KDP jigged, RS9000X shocks, Torklift frame mount tiedowns, Bigfoot 2500 10.6 camper. Leprosy cured at last - new paint May 08

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    6 miles from Solon, IA
    Posts
    6,165
    I like the way Montana handled it better.
    |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ||____
    | Keep n Truckin !!! ||""'|""\___,
    |__________________||__|__|__|):
    |(@)(@)""""""""""""|(@)(@)***|(@)

    '96 ex-cab 4x4 5-speed; Ron Paul bumper sticker
    Searching for Bigfoot (pickup camper) Let me know if you spot one.
    Scott

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Union of American Socialist Republics
    Posts
    3,798
    Like those in the courtroom, Mr. Barnett clearly and repeatedly misses a very important and very fundamental point. Privileges and immunities are liberties granted and revoked by government. Rights are endowed by God. No government can ever have the power to grant or revoke rights. Although they may have the power to suspend an individual's rights for a period of time if due process is followed and results in a conviction for a felonious tort, no government has the power to suspend all citizens' rights, with or without due process.



    Mr. Barnett also conveniently overlooks a second fundamental point: that the several states, as condition to their joining the union, agreed to hold the Constitution as the highest law of the land. They agreed that the law set forth by the Constitution applies just as fully to them as it does to the federal government.



    Mr. Barnett, the Supreme Court and the lawyers in the case are full of themselves. They are all seeking to redefine the language used to write the Constitution in order to allow one government or another to usurp more power that we, the people, specifically and explicitly denied to those governments. They are all seeking to change the Constitution and the law it set forth without going through the long and laborious amendment process.



    In my opinion, they are all traitors to the Constitution, to the republic, to the rule of law, and to us, the people.
    Neal P. Murphy
    Salem, Virg.

    Anger and intolerance are the twin enemies of correct understading. -- Mohandas Ghandi
    When a thing is true, there is no need to use any arguments to substantiate it. -- Vinoba Bhave

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    6 miles from Solon, IA
    Posts
    6,165
    Well said, Neal!!
    |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ||____
    | Keep n Truckin !!! ||""'|""\___,
    |__________________||__|__|__|):
    |(@)(@)""""""""""""|(@)(@)***|(@)

    '96 ex-cab 4x4 5-speed; Ron Paul bumper sticker
    Searching for Bigfoot (pickup camper) Let me know if you spot one.
    Scott

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bismarck, ND
    Posts
    803
    I know this will get me flamed, Ted Nugent has it right when he talks about firearms and our right to carry concealed. I believe his words were the second amendment is my concealed carry permit. I'm not a gun toter but I believe every American citizen who wishes to be armed, should. If you are a felon, be forewarned.
    2003 2500 SLT Quad Cab, LWB, 4WD, 305/555, 48RE, Smarty Jr, PML Pan, 3.73:1, MBRP 4" S/S Turbo Back Exhaust, DiPrico, Isspro and Autometer Gauges, PSM Cold Air, ATS Arc-Flow, FASS 95/95, 294HP/643TQ

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Covington, La
    Posts
    2,875
    Here's a good discussion about the issue. . .

    Mike Church Show transcript
    2008 2500 4WD Laramie

  10. #10
    Our last sheriff was convicted & removed from office & now we have a chick from Los Angeles running to county sheriff's department. The first thing she did was pull as many CCW's as she possibly could. Everyone is PO'd. We have an election coming up in June to replace the County Board's appointment. She's running for it. She likes the power.



    I've never sent money to a local candidate before until I sent this guy $250 last week. I'll bet you all wish he was running in your county (if you live in a may-issue state)





    <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www. youtube. com/v/2FVPmkZ906s&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www. youtube. com/v/2FVPmkZ906s&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
    04.5 2500 Laramie SB QC 4x4, 48RE w/ 3.73, KORE & 315's, caravan shell w/ line-x
    59 W300M
    backup-83 cj-7

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    DANGER CLOSE
    Posts
    3,499

    Thumbs up

    He'll Do!
    A man with an experience, is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,144
    Sounds a little anticop
    96 Club Cab 5spd, 4WD, 10 plate, BHAF, 19.5 tires, SBC, KDP Tabbed

    Freedom is not free, but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share.

    Law enforcement ain't rocket science...It's a hell of a lot more complicated.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    A drink in my hand and my toes in the sand
    Posts
    4,568
    Ahhh youre just sensitive.



    I wish we had some people running for office like him in these parts. . . .

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,144
    So do I. . . Even if he is anticop
    96 Club Cab 5spd, 4WD, 10 plate, BHAF, 19.5 tires, SBC, KDP Tabbed

    Freedom is not free, but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share.

    Law enforcement ain't rocket science...It's a hell of a lot more complicated.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Union of American Socialist Republics
    Posts
    3,798
    Quote Originally Posted by The patriot View Post
    Ahhh youre just sensitive.



    I wish we had some people running for office like him in these parts. . . .


    He and CF share the same set of blinders. Possibly simultaneously. . . .
    Neal P. Murphy
    Salem, Virg.

    Anger and intolerance are the twin enemies of correct understading. -- Mohandas Ghandi
    When a thing is true, there is no need to use any arguments to substantiate it. -- Vinoba Bhave

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •