Why would the supreme court even look at the second amendment again? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why would the supreme court even look at the second amendment again?


frank4570
09-30-2012, 07:58
It was a long time coming before the supreme finally agreed to look at the second amendment. Then finally did and they made their decision. I really think MOST of the country pretty much agrees with what they said.
Lots of people keep talking about what would happen if we end up with more liberal supreme court justices.
But is it even realistic that they would have any reason to change the decision they just made?

Restless28
09-30-2012, 08:00
If you believe most of what you read here, then the answer is yes.

If you actually think for yourself, the answer is no.

JBnTX
09-30-2012, 08:05
The anti-gunners will never give up.

When it comes to a Supreme Court full of liberal activist judges, anything can happen.

samurairabbi
09-30-2012, 08:23
A future court may be willing to find "limitations" in the findings of the Heller and McDonald decisions. Such a process would be slow, but it has happened before in Supreme Court history.

cheapshot
09-30-2012, 09:05
The anti-gunners will never give up.

When it comes to a Supreme Court full of liberal activist judges, anything can happen.Can, and will happen!

Restless28
09-30-2012, 09:07
Can, and will happen!

What else does your crystal ball say?

ClydeG19
09-30-2012, 09:17
The court needs a pretty good reason to hear a case pertaining to the 2A given the Heller ruling. They may hear cases clarifying Heller, but it's unlikely to be completely overturned. Kind of like Roe vs Wade...even with a conservative court it's unlikely to be overturned.

Bren
09-30-2012, 09:19
It was a long time coming before the supreme finally agreed to look at the second amendment. Then finally did and they made their decision. I really think MOST of the country pretty much agrees with what they said.
Lots of people keep talking about what would happen if we end up with more liberal supreme court justices.
But is it even realistic that they would have any reason to change the decision they just made?

They refused to look at it for 200 years because they didn't want to. Guess what it takes for them to look again? They (a majority of the justices) decide they want to.

The Supreme Court averages reversing its own decisions more than twice a year, according to a quick search.

[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.
—Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944).

So, why would they look again?

Because they get at least 5 justices who want to and because there are practically no consequences for the Democrats if the Supreme Court can be convinced to make the 2nd Amendment meaningless - nobody loses jobs, like when congress does it, because the court has lifetime appointments and the worst that can be said is "a democrat nominated him." Pretty attractive possibility for anti-gunners.

badge315
09-30-2012, 09:20
While it's true that no possibility should be discounted, it seems unlikely to me that Heller would overturned...at least in the near future. I'm pretty sure that the SCOTUS cannot take it upon themselves and say, "We changed our minds and are reversing our previous decision". Another relevant case would have to be brought before them to rule upon...and that's going to take a while.

Bren
09-30-2012, 09:23
The court needs a pretty good reason to hear a case pertaining to the 2A given the Heller ruling. They may hear cases clarifying Heller, but it's unlikely to be completely overturned. Kind of like Roe vs Wade...even with a conservative court it's unlikely to be overturned.

What rule is that? The only "reason" the court requires is that somebody has a case that involves the 2nd amendment in any way and they decide to hear it. Could be a pro-gun or anti-gun lawsuit, could be an appeal of a criminal case, where the criminal says his 2nd Amendment rights were violaetd by prosecuting him for possessing a gun. Opportunities for them to decide the issue come up every week, if not every day.

While it's true that no possibility should be discounted, it seems unlikely to me that Heller would overturned...at least in the near future. I'm pretty sure that the SCOTUS cannot take it upon themselves and say, "We changed our minds and are reversing our previous decision". Another relevant case would have to be brought before them to rule upon...and that's going to take a while.

Yes, they have to have an actual case, but criminals move for cert on their appeals every day. It would only take a month to find the case to reverse it if they really, really wanted to make sure they picked a good one.

Since March of 2008, Heller has been cited in other cases 3,850 times. 130 of those citations were "negative" meaning that they disagreed with Heller, or what Westlaw labesl as: "Called into doubt," "Distingushed" or "Declined to extend" (refused to apply Heller to the case before the court). A quick look says that in the first 10 or so I looked at, once was from the 9th Circuit, the most liberal and anti-gun federal circuit, and they found the second amendment did not apply to a "homemade machinegun" - all it takes is 5 votes for the Supreme Court to pull that case up and decide they were wrong or to limit Heller until it is meaningless.

frank4570
09-30-2012, 09:24
The Supreme Court averages reversing its own decisions more than twice a year, according to a quick search.





HOLY CRAP.:shocked:

Ok, now I'm concerned.

M&P Shooter
09-30-2012, 09:29
Because Obama is our creator and master:whistling:

vikingsoftpaw
09-30-2012, 09:31
There is a term, 'Framing the Argument' used by liberals/progressives. It is a way of presenting the same old argument in a new light to make it more palatable.

When liberals cannot accomplish their means at the ballot box, they use the courts to ram down everybody's throats.

So the answer is Yes.

frank4570
09-30-2012, 09:35
I guess I also was a little tunnel visioned on how I have been looking at this.

dango
09-30-2012, 09:46
Seems to me everything started from the "Patriot-Act"".
Gave them the right to do and sign into action anything they want.
Don't think they can't cause if we don't stop them,they can do whatever "WE" let them !

Restless28
09-30-2012, 09:47
Seems to me everything started from the "Patriot-Act"".
Gave them the right to do and sign into action anything they want.
Don't think they can't cause if we don't stop them,they can do whatever "WE" let them !

Thank God we had Republicans to protect us. :upeyes:

frank4570
09-30-2012, 09:48
Seems to me everything started from the "Patriot-Act"".
Gave them the right to do and sign into action anything they want.
Don't think they can't cause if we don't stop them,they can do whatever "WE" let them !

Yeah, that monstrosity really did push our rights off a cliff.

Bren
09-30-2012, 09:55
Seems to me everything started from the "Patriot-Act"".
Gave them the right to do and sign into action anything they want.
Don't think they can't cause if we don't stop them,they can do whatever "WE" let them !

We're talking about the judicial branch/Supreme Court. You're talking about the executive branch. The Supreme Court has always had the "right to do and sign into action anything they want" as long as they can make a constitutional argument for it and, when necessary, they based that on things that aren't even stated in the constitution. The "right to privacy" for example, is one they made up because it was kind of implied by the joint effect of the bill of rights, more or less.

JW1178
09-30-2012, 10:13
What rule is that? The only "reason" the court requires is that somebody has a case that involves the 2nd amendment in any way and they decide to hear it.

Exactly. The reason Heller sued was because DC said it was collective right and Heller said it was an individual right. Heller won. Since he was suing DC, the city courts were not qualified to to so it went to the supreme court. So basically, someone is going to have to make a case of why individuals shouldn't be allowed to own a gun and how it's a collective right. That's going to be very hard.

OR of course, make another adm to over-ride that.

Seems to me everything started from the "Patriot-Act"".
Gave them the right to do and sign into action anything they want.
Don't think they can't cause if we don't stop them,they can do whatever "WE" let them !

The "Patriot" act is probably the greatest threats to our freedom since the the War of 1812. When you give the government the right to overide the law and constitution you are opening the door to a whole lot of terrible things. What president did that? What party? The Republicans wonder why the country has lost faith in them. The only thing they have going for them is they are the lesser of the two evils but not by much.

End the Patriot Act and Executive Priveleges and we can all sleep a bit better at night.

9jeeps
09-30-2012, 10:47
Not to worry. Obama will appoint new SCOTUS Justices his next term then you won't have to concern yourselves with a Second Amendment.

frank4570
09-30-2012, 11:37
Question.
Would a new AWB be unconstitutional as a result of the Heller decision?

Zombie Surgeon
09-30-2012, 11:39
Thank God we had Republicans to protect us. :upeyes:

Gary Johnson!

http://youtu.be/3QmQ0OaIVCU

Detectorist
09-30-2012, 11:48
They refused to look at it for 200 years because they didn't want to. Guess what it takes for them to look again? They (a majority of the justices) decide they want to.

The Supreme Court averages reversing its own decisions more than twice a year, according to a quick search.



So, why would they look again?

Because they get at least 5 justices who want to and because there are practically no consequences for the Democrats if the Supreme Court can be convinced to make the 2nd Amendment meaningless - nobody loses jobs, like when congress does it, because the court has lifetime appointments and the worst that can be said is "a democrat nominated him." Pretty attractive possibility for anti-gunners.

Bingo.

I think folks don't realize what's at stake here. Obama has already appointed 2 justices who think that firefighter promotion tests are invalid when the wrong group of minorities pass.

I think people really don't realize what's at stake here. Obama will have the opportunity to shape the court in his image for the next 30 years.

Detectorist
09-30-2012, 11:52
If you believe most of what you read here, then the answer is yes.

If you actually think for yourself, the answer is no.

It's pretty obvious that you don't know squat about the law and how appeals work. There could be any number of reasons for the SC to revisit their favorable 2A decisions. They can and they will.

Liberals will do anything to promote judicial activism as they very well know that they can't get any anti-gun laws passed because the people don't want to support them. The judiciary is their only recourse.

cheapshot
09-30-2012, 11:57
What else does your crystal ball say?Wait and see.

Maxx702
09-30-2012, 12:15
Question.
Would a new AWB be unconstitutional as a result of the Heller decision?

I don't see the Heller ruling saving us from the next AWB.
Nowhere in Heller did they discuss what types of firearms we have a right to bear. They even left room for "reasonable restrictions" to be imposed by local governments.

In the Heller case, the liberals argued the citizen has no inherent "right to bear arms" even tho the Constitution states otherwise. Luckily 5 of the Justices are able to read.

There are plenty of judicial battles ahead.

JuneyBooney
09-30-2012, 13:46
The anti-gunners will never give up.

When it comes to a Supreme Court full of liberal activist judges, anything can happen.

I agree. The anti gunners will never give up and the anti abortion folks won't either. :whistling:

Acujeff
09-30-2012, 17:24
We were fortunate that 5 Supreme Court Justices in Heller and McDonald confirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right to armed self defense and must be applied to all levels of government. And, in case you forgot, we were fortunate that Bush, often labeled not pro-2A enough, appointed Alito and Roberts as Justices to make that pro-Second Amendment majority and obtain that opinion.

However, the minority opinion by the other four Justices was that the Second Amendment:

- did not protect a private right of armed self-defense
- does not apply to the states
- does not apply to individuals outside of the militia context

If there were five, instead of four, anti-Second Amendment Justices the RKBA would have been effectively written out of the Bill of Rights.

It could still happen. The composition of the Court can change and prior decisions can be overturned.

Four US Supreme Court Justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg) will be over the age of 80 by the end of Obama's second term. He could likely appoint 4 more Justices if he is re-elected - all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come. An anti-2A Court would be free to re-define and dismantle the RKBA out of existence. The current anti-gun Justices have already stated their intention to do exactly that.

Anti-Second Amendment Justice Ginsberg has stated that the majority opinions in this case are “grievously mistaken”, that minority opinions would be used to rewrite legal history and create a purely “collective right connected to the militia” and she looks forward to the day a “future, wiser court“ overturns Heller. John Paul Stevens recently told Time magazine the one thing in particular he would change about the American judicial system “I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The court got that quite wrong.”

Obama appointed anti-Second Amendment Justices, Sotomayor and Kagan. Given the opportunity he will do it again. All they need is one more like minded Justice to get a majority of five anti’s and implement their stated agenda through the courts.

If that happens we’ll never see a pro-RKBA victory again in our lifetime.

There are already more RKBA cases headed to the Supreme Court involving the private right of armed self-defense outside the home and the heavy restrictions in places like Chicago and Washington DC.

In addition, since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts. At present, there are 86 vacancies on district and appellate courts, 39 of which already have pending nominees before the Senate. It’s not in gun owners best interests to give him a second term and the opportunity to appoint more anti-2A judges and justices.

Though there are a few folks revising and misrepresenting his record, Romney has a much better record and a much better choice for gun owners than Obama. He is campaigning on appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. While Justices don't always vote the same way, these four Justices have consistently ruled in favor of the RKBA.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/courts-constitution
http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-set-to-ok-most-pro-gun-platform-ever/article/2506043

Restless28
09-30-2012, 17:29
We were fortunate that 5 Supreme Court Justices in Heller and McDonald confirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right to armed self defense and must be applied to all levels of government. And, in case you forgot, we were fortunate that Bush, often labeled not pro-2A enough, appointed Alito and Roberts as Justices to make that pro-Second Amendment majority and obtain that opinion.

However, the minority opinion by the other four Justices was that the Second Amendment:

- did not protect a private right of armed self-defense
- does not apply to the states
- does not apply to individuals outside of the militia context

If there were five, instead of four, anti-Second Amendment Justices the RKBA would have been effectively written out of the Bill of Rights.

It could still happen. The composition of the Court can change and prior decisions can be overturned.

Four US Supreme Court Justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg) will be over the age of 80 by the end of Obama's second term. He could likely appoint 4 more Justices if he is re-elected - all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come. An anti-2A Court would be free to re-define and dismantle the RKBA out of existence. The current anti-gun Justices have already stated their intention to do exactly that.

Anti-Second Amendment Justice Ginsberg has stated that the majority opinions in this case are “grievously mistaken”, that minority opinions would be used to rewrite legal history and create a purely “collective right connected to the militia” and she looks forward to the day a “future, wiser court“ overturns Heller. John Paul Stevens recently told Time magazine the one thing in particular he would change about the American judicial system “I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The court got that quite wrong.”

Obama appointed anti-Second Amendment Justices, Sotomayor and Kagan. Given the opportunity he will do it again. All they need is one more like minded Justice to get a majority of five anti’s and implement their stated agenda through the courts.

If that happens we’ll never see a pro-RKBA victory again in our lifetime.

There are already more RKBA cases headed to the Supreme Court involving the private right of armed self-defense outside the home and the heavy restrictions in places like Chicago and Washington DC.

In addition, since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts. At present, there are 86 vacancies on district and appellate courts, 39 of which already have pending nominees before the Senate. It’s not in gun owners best interests to give him a second term and the opportunity to appoint more anti-2A judges and justices.

Though there are a few folks revising and misrepresenting his record, Romney has a much better record and a much better choice for gun owners than Obama. He is campaigning on appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. While Justices don't always vote the same way, these four Justices have consistently ruled in favor of the RKBA.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/courts-constitution
http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-set-to-ok-most-pro-gun-platform-ever/article/2506043


That's a lot of typing.

You do know that an appointment has to be confirmed. Your republican leaders didn't put up a fight against Obama's appointees.

BEANCOUNTER
09-30-2012, 20:43
I don't see the Heller ruling saving us from the next AWB. Nowhere in Heller did they discuss what types of firearms we have a right to bear...

Justice Scalia, who wrote the SC's Heller opinion, at least gave us a hint.

In Heller Scalia wrote that the traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. Further the small-arms used by colonial and revolutionary war militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.

Scalia went on to explain that U.S. v Miller (an older SCOTUS case upholding a sawed-off shotgun ban) says only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

Spiffums
09-30-2012, 20:54
There WILL be another ban and all out disarmament of the citizens of the US. Outside of biblical prophecies coming to pass, it will take a generation or so that do not remember or care about the lesson of the Mid Term election after the 94 ban. And like every moment in History it will come around again.

CitizenOfDreams
09-30-2012, 21:20
Because the Founding Fathers did not bother to formulate its text in a clear language that does not need a Supreme Court to decipher?

Flying-Dutchman
09-30-2012, 21:28
This is a joke question, right?

We just had Justice Roberts change his mind on Obamacare at the last minute after "someone got to him”.

And the way Roberts “fixed” Obamacare by making it a tax instead of sending it back to the Congress, very strange indeed.

Don’t count on the Supreme Court to protect the Constitution ever again.

12131
09-30-2012, 21:33
Of the 3 current oldest justices, Scalia (1936) and Kennedy (1936) were on the 2A side in Heller, and Ginsburg (1933) was with the minority.
A couple more antis being appointed and confirmed to the SCOTUS, and, sooner or later, it will all be over. That's what my crystal ball says.:dunno:

12131
09-30-2012, 21:34
this is a joke question, right?

We just had justice roberts change his mind on obamacare at the last minute after "someone got to him”.

And the way roberts “fixed” obamacare by making it a tax instead of sending it back to the congress, very strange indeed.

Don’t count on the supreme court to protect the constitution ever again.
+11111111111111111

Trew2Life
09-30-2012, 21:36
I'd love to put in my two cents but I am not as verse in constitutional law nor am I the hearty gun enthusiast. Is there really a genuine concern that the 2nd Amendment would be overturned and guns would be outlawed in the U.S.? This does not seem consistent with a POTUS whose only two gun laws in 4 years were to increase gun rights in national parks and aboard passenger trains.

The constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, yet we accept that our speech can be infringed. We are held liable for our words in social, civil and criminal matters.

Why, in this day and age, should we not expect our right to bear arms come with some common sense regulations as well?

12131
09-30-2012, 21:43
^^^ Here we go again with "common sense" regulations.

Trew2Life
09-30-2012, 22:31
^^^ Here we go again with "common sense" regulations.

“Thus we play the fool with the time and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us.” William Shakespeare

unit1069
09-30-2012, 23:08
They refused to look at it (2nd Amendment) for 200 years because they didn't want to. Guess what it takes for them to look again? They (a majority of the justices) decide they want to.

The Supreme Court averages reversing its own decisions more than twice a year, according to a quick search.

So, why would they look again?

Because they get at least 5 justices who want to ...

Unless I'm mistaken it takes only four Court members to agree to hear a case, and there's already four Radical Left neo-Marxist members of the Court. A fifth Rad appointed by Obama would surely doom the Second Amendment, which would create an uproar among the electorate, which would then necessitate the mainstream media to falsify every news story or honest historic examination of constitutional law and the Founders' intent. The end result would be the Obama Court would do whatever Obama told it to do.

I'm truly frightened by the similarities between Barack Obama and any number of Marxist First Comrades who have destroyed entire countries once they've seized control of the levers of Executive power.

HarlDane
09-30-2012, 23:58
The court ruled in Heller that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right and in McDonald that it applied to the States. We have yet to hash out the details like the level of scrutiny that will be applied and how that will all affect the numerous gun laws out there.

Because the courts move slowly and generally only tackle one key issue at a time, the strategy is to start with the most obvious violations and move down. Heller and McDonald addressed outright bans, now that we have those rulings, we can move forward and try to win a few more cases. However it plays out, it will take years and involve dozens of cases.

Trew2Life
10-01-2012, 00:47
How can you really rely on the allegiance of any SC Justice? Who would have thunk CJ Roberts would uphold the Affordable Health Care Act? Damn liberal. :rofl:

jp3975
10-01-2012, 03:31
I'd love to put in my two cents but I am not as verse in constitutional law nor am I the hearty gun enthusiast. Is there really a genuine concern that the 2nd Amendment would be overturned and guns would be outlawed in the U.S.? This does not seem consistent with a POTUS whose only two gun laws in 4 years were to increase gun rights in national parks and aboard passenger trains.

The constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, yet we accept that our speech can be infringed. We are held liable for our words in social, civil and criminal matters.

Why, in this day and age, should we not expect our right to bear arms come with some common sense regulations as well?

Obama doesnt have to do anything other than appoint a new member of scotus.

Why would Obama not pass the laws you mention? They are minor. Vetoing them would make him look anti-gun and give his opponents ammo during re-election.

He is as anti-gun as they come if you look at his senate record and scotus pics. Didnt you hear about him telling the brady person that he was working on things under the radar?

And what are reasonable restrictions? Most gun laws are made by retards that dont make anyone safer. Just like switchblades. Illegal everywhere because they are scary but no more functional that a common pocketknife.

Restless28
10-01-2012, 04:36
How can you really rely on the allegiance of any SC Justice? Who would have thunk CJ Roberts would uphold the Affordable Health Care Act? Damn liberal. :rofl:

I still think folks are in denial.

Flying-Dutchman
10-01-2012, 07:19
How can you really rely on the allegiance of any SC Justice? Who would have thunk CJ Roberts would uphold the Affordable Health Care Act? Damn liberal. :rofl:
“Someone got to Roberts” at the last minute coercing him to change his mind; we will read about the sordid details 30 years from now if we are still allowed such activity.

Corruption at this highest level is no laughing matter.

It was naïve to think a few Justices could stop the Obamacare monstrosity.

Someone from Chicago stopped by and made Justice Roberts an offer he couldn’t refuse.

G36's Rule
10-01-2012, 07:27
HOLY CRAP.:shocked:

Ok, now I'm concerned.

Hahahaha...

Bren shown a little light of reality into your world and all of a sudden you are awake.

But for how long?

G36's Rule
10-01-2012, 07:31
That's a lot of typing.

You do know that an appointment has to be confirmed. Your republican leaders didn't put up a fight against Obama's appointees.

They were in the minority.

And you need to get back on your meds. You are all over the place politically the last month or so.

series1811
10-01-2012, 07:35
For the same reason any case law is revisted. You have a different political majority that thinks the case law needs to be set right.

Brucev
10-01-2012, 08:09
It was a long time coming before the supreme finally agreed to look at the second amendment. Then finally did and they made their decision. I really think MOST of the country pretty much agrees with what they said.
Lots of people keep talking about what would happen if we end up with more liberal supreme court justices.
But is it even realistic that they would have any reason to change the decision they just made?

Why should the sc even look at the second amendment again? Simple. For the exact same reason it was looked at the first and subsequent times... i.e., a legitimate question as to how it applies.

RYT 2BER
10-01-2012, 22:03
They were in the minority.

And you need to get back on your meds. You are all over the place politically the last month or so.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Omg too funny!!

Restless28
10-02-2012, 04:14
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Omg too funny!!

........

Bren
10-02-2012, 05:04
I'd love to put in my two cents but I am not as verse in constitutional law nor am I the hearty gun enthusiast. Is there really a genuine concern that the 2nd Amendment would be overturned and guns would be outlawed in the U.S.? This does not seem consistent with a POTUS whose only two gun laws in 4 years were to increase gun rights in national parks and aboard passenger trains.


This discussion is about his supreme court appointments. No president can make a law - congress does that. But he can appoint far left liberal nuts to the Supreme Court for LIFE, as Obama has done. They can then change the constitution with the stroke of a pen - that is far more dangerous than making new statutes.

The constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, yet we accept that our speech can be infringed. We are held liable for our words in social, civil and criminal matters.

The Heller decision is the gun equivilent of the court ruling that individuals have a right to free speech, at all, over arguments that the 1st amendment it is actually a right of state government to make official statements.

Think how you hippies would like it if occupying parks and complaining about your government check being late were banned.

Restless28
10-02-2012, 05:32
Hippies, lol.:upeyes:

eruby
10-02-2012, 05:45
Judge Legg in Woollard v. Sheridan held Maryland's 'good and substantial reason' for a carry permit was unconstitutional. Maryland cried for a stay pending appeal, which he granted, and then asked for briefs on why the stay should be lifted or kept.

After taking a very long time (to me), Judge Legg lifted the stay and Maryland went running the 4th Circuit for an appeal and a stay.

Excellent briefs by the SAF (IMO) were ignored by the 4th Circuit and the stay was upheald. The appeal is being fastracked and oral arguments start the 24th of this month.

Whoever loses at the 4th circiuit will surely appeal to the SCOTUS. Who can say if they'll grant cert or not.

Maryland has had a draconian, crony-based permit "scheme" - Judge Legg's word :supergrin: - for over 40 years. Hopefully it will change soon.

As in Obamacare, you never can tell how the SCOTUS will rule. :wow:

SCHADENFREUDE
10-02-2012, 05:58
Gun owners that support self defense and the true meaning of the second amendment are few and far between. We are the minority that our system was set up to protect.

Our Republic has rapidly turned into a democracy. We are on the verge of mob rule. Mitt Romney actually had it right in IMHO. When this is over people will be muttering how maybe we should have listened to that other guy.

Come November I fear that we will see the new face of America. The 51% voting them self all stuff they can get. I see motivation on their side and apathy on our side.

The democrats know that to control this country you have to disarm the people. They will do it through the Supreme court. They will stack that sucker high with liberals to do it.

Most of the people in this country won't care. You will turn in your guns or get screwed through the IRS. There will be no resistance and no Red Dawn. There will be no I lost them in a fishing accident.

The problem with the people in this country is that you think these politicians are stupid. They aren't. They are very smart and very conniving.

kiole
10-02-2012, 06:13
Think how you hippies would like it if occupying parks and complaining about your government check being late were banned.

Not banned but there are unreasonable restrictions in my opinion. Free Speech Zones, protest permits ..etc

It's funny though that many liberals complain about these restrictions in the name of "security" but are the first to lineup to support gun restrictions in the name of "security".

Flying-Dutchman
10-02-2012, 06:27
The Supreme Court just ruled it is OK to force you to buy something from a private company.

They own you now. Taking your gun is a minor bump in the road.

And when the Government is regulating your medical treatment, it is their business to keep you healthy so:

No guns.

No motorcycles.

No soda.

No red meat.

No smoking.

No alcohol.

No skydiving…you get the idea, belt with suspenders and a helmet any time you leave your house.

frank4570
10-02-2012, 06:29
Think how you hippies would like it if occupying parks and complaining about your government check being late were banned.

That cracked me up. :rofl:

TheJ
10-02-2012, 07:22
I'd love to put in my two cents but I am not as verse in constitutional law nor am I the hearty gun enthusiast. Is there really a genuine concern that the 2nd Amendment would be overturned and guns would be outlawed in the U.S.? This does not seem consistent with a POTUS whose only two gun laws in 4 years were to increase gun rights in national parks and aboard passenger trains.

The constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, yet we accept that our speech can be infringed. We are held liable for our words in social, civil and criminal matters.

Why, in this day and age, should we not expect our right to bear arms come with some common sense regulations as well?
1) The second amendment doesn't have to be "overturned" to be completely gutted.

2) What he signed was a rider that he couldn't avoid. He was practically forced to sign it. Do a little research rather then accepting the left wing talking point on face value. He has appointed two extremely anti-second amendment judges to the SCOTUS (and many many more to lower courts) which is far more damaging then any law that could be passed.

3) Yes there are limits placed on speech. I'm quite glad you brought up another fundamental right to compare. So lets do that... if you apply the logic of current gun control laws (of which there are more then 22,000) to speech, then you would not be able to even speak out loud in public without first going through a background check, being fingerprinted, going through a speech safety courses and paying a healthy fee. Many states wouldn't even allow "open speaking" and would require you to only speak in hushed tones. Then you also live with the fear that your right to speak could be taken away at any time for some infraction of law even if it is unrelated to speaking. Additionally, there would be there would be "speech zones" all over the place where you were or were not allowed to exercise your right to speak out loud or write words/symbols, make funny faces,etc.. In many cases you would be driving down the road in your car talking to some one and suddenly be guilty of a felony by changing your proximity... Different localities allow different words and you are responsible to know every law in every municipality you travel into if you wish to speak, carry a cell phone or books with pictures/words in them... And ignorance of the law is no excuse. Don't forget FBI background checks and waiting periods if you wish to by tools for exercising free screech like a megaphone, cell phone, books, pens, etc. there would be constant calls for banning assault speech.

Free speech is a far more dangerous thing then a firearm.

mgs
10-02-2012, 07:31
The UN will trump the Justices! Just found this....a bit dated but true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=-wIfI2whjiM

Trew2Life
10-02-2012, 07:49
This discussion is about his supreme court appointments. No president can make a law - congress does that. But he can appoint far left liberal nuts to the Supreme Court for LIFE, as Obama has done. They can then change the constitution with the stroke of a pen - that is far more dangerous than making new statutes.

The Heller decision is the gun equivilent of the court ruling that individuals have a right to free speech, at all, over arguments that the 1st amendment it is actually a right of state government to make official statements.

Think how you hippies would like it if occupying parks and complaining about your government check being late were banned.

SCOTUS' do not 'change' the constitution. They interpret it and uphold the law. A constitutional amendment would require 2/3's approval in Congress (currently under Rebulican majority) and/or a 2/3's majority in the Senate (currently under a slim Democratic majority)

So, how likely is the Supreme Court to revisit its 2nd Amendment decisions and make way for more gun restrictions ...

About as likely as the alternative: more conservative judges reversing Roe v. Wade, or Brown v Board of Ed. I'd rather go without my assault weapon and extended magazines if it means protecting my childrens education and my daughters right to make her own personal/biological decisions.

But I feel where you're coming from. I know how upset you righties were when anti-inbreeding and the legal age of consent laws were passed.

dbcooper
10-02-2012, 07:58
An all out ban isn't a matter of if , it's a matter of when. Will it be in my lifetime or my kids, maybe my grandkids.

G36's Rule
10-02-2012, 07:58
SCOTUS' do not 'change' the constitution.

They most certainly do change the interpretation of the Constitution and thus law. They can and do change the law of the land.

Roe vs. Wade?
Heller?
McDonald?

TheJ
10-02-2012, 07:59
SCOTUS' do not 'change' the constitution. They interpret it and uphold the law. A constitutional amendment would require 2/3's approval in Congress (currently under Rebulican majority) and/or a 2/3's majority in the Senate (currently under a slim Democratic majority)

So, how likely is the Supreme Court to revisit its 2nd Amendment decisions and make way for more gun restrictions ...

About as likely as the alternative: more conservative judges reversing Roe v. Wade, or Brown v Board of Ed. I'd rather go without my assault weapon and extended magazines if it means protecting my childrens education and my daughters right to make her own personal/biological decisions.

But I feel where you're coming from. I know how upset you righties were when anti-inbreeding and the legal age of consent laws were passed.

What exactly is an "assault weapon"?

Dragoon189
10-02-2012, 07:59
That's a lot of typing.

You do know that an appointment has to be confirmed. Your republican leaders didn't put up a fight against Obama's appointees.

only the SENATE has to approve the judges, that half of congress is controlled by democrats

TheJ
10-02-2012, 08:05
They most certainly do change the interpretation of the Constitution and thus law. They can and do change the law of the land.

Roe vs. Wade?
Heller?
McDonald?

+Miranda, Brown v BOE, Missouri compromise, etc etc.

When you can change the interpretation of words then there is no need to change the words.

Bren
10-02-2012, 08:19
SCOTUS' do not 'change' the constitution. They interpret it and uphold the law.

And, about twivce a yeear they overrule themselves, without changing the language of the constitution. That means the meaning of the same words in the constitution is reversed from the last thing the Supreme Court said it meant. Even more often, the meaning of the constitution is changed from what lower courrts said it meant. You don't consider that a change?

Take Griswold v. Connecticut, for example - the Court decided the Bill of Rights creates an implied right to privacy that isn't expressly stated in the constitution and had never been found to exist before. That decision became to basis for the constitutional right to brith control, abortion and many other things, based on the "right to privacy." No constitutional amendment was needed to add a right that isn't even mentioned in the constitution.

Even Heller recognized that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, thereby changing the prevailing meaning of the 2nd amendment prior to that time.


So, how likely is the Supreme Court to revisit its 2nd Amendment decisions and make way for more gun restrictions ...

About as likely as the alternative: more conservative judges reversing Roe v. Wade, or Brown v Board of Ed. I'd rather go without my assault weapon and extended magazines if it means protecting my childrens education and my daughters right to make her own personal/biological decisions.


You are correct - just as likely - that's why those who suppoprt abortion rights never cease to be concerned about that happening and continue to protest in favor of the right they currently have.


But I feel where you're coming from. I know how upset you righties were when anti-inbreeding and the legal age of consent laws were passed.

Typical of you.

Caver 60
10-02-2012, 08:30
Some of you folks had better listen to Bren and others. Bren especially, really knows what he is talking about and he is a highly qualified attorney, as probably are some of the other pro Second Amendment posters.

I'll try to find an online link to a booklet published by the US Senate back about 30 or 40 years ago defending the Second Amendment, when I have more time. There is absolutely no question it is an individual right and the language is crystal clear when it's properly interpreted.

redbaron007
10-02-2012, 08:49
That's a lot of typing.

You do know that an appointment has to be confirmed. Your republican leaders didn't put up a fight against Obama's appointees.

They were in the minority.

And you need to get back on your meds. You are all over the place politically the last month or so.

I thought he maybe was taking tooo many!! :rofl:

SCOTUS' do not 'change' the constitution. They interpret it and uphold the law. A constitutional amendment would require 2/3's approval in Congress (currently under Rebulican majority) and/or a 2/3's majority in the Senate (currently under a slim Democratic majority)

So, how likely is the Supreme Court to revisit its 2nd Amendment decisions and make way for more gun restrictions ...

About as likely as the alternative: more conservative judges reversing Roe v. Wade, or Brown v Board of Ed. I'd rather go without my assault weapon and extended magazines if it means protecting my childrens education and my daughters right to make her own personal/biological decisions.

But I feel where you're coming from. I know how upset you righties were when anti-inbreeding and the legal age of consent laws were passed.

WTH???

Take it away Bren!

And, about twivce a yeear they overrule themselves, without changing the language of the constitution. That means the meaning of the same words in the constitution is reversed from the last thing the Supreme Court said it meant. Even more often, the meaning of the constitution is changed from what lower courrts said it meant. You don't consider that a change?

Take Griswold v. Connecticut, for example - the Court decided the Bill of Rights creates an implied right to privacy that isn't expressly stated in the constitution and had never been found to exist before. That decision became to basis for the constitutional right to brith control, abortion and many other things, based on the "right to privacy." No constitutional amendment was needed to add a right that isn't even mentioned in the constitution.

Even Heller recognized that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, thereby changing the prevailing meaning of the 2nd amendment prior to that time.



You are correct - just as likely - that's why those who suppoprt abortion rights never cease to be concerned about that happening and continue to protest in favor of the right they currently have.

Typical of you.

Thanks Bren.

Trew2Life....see the bold above....that alone cancels out your theory.


:wavey:

red

Trew2Life
10-02-2012, 09:25
1) The second amendment doesn't have to be "overturned" to be completely gutted.

2) What he signed was a rider that he couldn't avoid. He was practically forced to sign it. Do a little research rather then accepting the left wing talking point on face value. He has appointed two extremely anti-second amendment judges to the SCOTUS (and many many more to lower courts) which is far more damaging then any law that could be passed.

3) Yes there are limits placed on speech. I'm quite glad you brought up another fundamental right to compare. So lets do that... if you apply the logic of current gun control laws (of which there are more then 22,000) to speech, then you would not be able to even speak out loud in public without first going through a background check, being fingerprinted, going through a speech safety courses and paying a healthy fee. Many states wouldn't even allow "open speaking" and would require you to only speak in hushed tones. Then you also live with the fear that your right to speak could be taken away at any time for some infraction of law even if it is unrelated to speaking. Additionally, there would be there would be "speech zones" all over the place where you were or were not allowed to exercise your right to speak out loud or write words/symbols, make funny faces,etc.. In many cases you would be driving down the road in your car talking to some one and suddenly be guilty of a felony by changing your proximity... Different localities allow different words and you are responsible to know every law in every municipality you travel into if you wish to speak, carry a cell phone or books with pictures/words in them... And ignorance of the law is no excuse. Don't forget FBI background checks and waiting periods if you wish to by tools for exercising free screech like a megaphone, cell phone, books, pens, etc. there would be constant calls for banning assault speech.

Free speech is a far more dangerous thing then a firearm.

1) True. I suppose gun rights could be regulated and taxed out of pratical existence. I doubt the likeliness of that happening to such an extreme, but I do understand your concerns.

2) True. It was a 'rider' that was added on to a totally unrelated bill, but that also helps to demonstrate the point I was trying to make: For a POTUS who is viewed as so anti 2nd amendment to have NOT passed/signed any anti-gun legislation (of his own) - and the only two gun laws he did sign will 'extend' gun rights, not limit them.

It should be interesting to note that it was Reagan who imposed the ban of firearms in National parks and GWB tried to impose similar restrictions before leaving office.

2B) The amendment expanding gun rights to Amtrak was strictly about gun rights and was supported by half of the Senate Democrats. BHO was under no obligation to sign it.

3) Thank you. Your response is a very good analytical comparison of the two rights afforded the people. very insightful. I learned a thing or two.

I would never suggest, nor would I like to see the peoples right to bear arms be totally upturned. However, I empathize with communities who are trying desperately to cope with out of control gun-related chaos. What do they do? Everybody gets a gun? Nobody gets a gun? Where's the happy medium?

I am willing to die for my right to bear arms. But NOT for a right to carry 100+ rounds of ammo in a military grade assault weapon.

I know guns don't kill people; people kill people, which is why I keep all of my people safely locked up. :embarassed:

Trew2Life
10-03-2012, 09:05
What exactly is an "assault weapon"?

For the purposes of this conversation it's a term used to describe any hand held firearm, either manufactured or modified, to shoot with a automatic rate of fire.

Bren - You said this ...
Think how you hippies would like it if occupying parks and complaining about your government check being late were banned.
I thought it was funny. So did a few others. I replied with
I know how upset you righties were when anti-inbreeding and the legal age of consent laws were passed.

Joke v Joke
Don't take it personal, right?

G36's Rule
10-03-2012, 09:30
1)
It should be interesting to note that it was Reagan who imposed the ban of firearms in National parks and GWB tried to impose similar restrictions before leaving office.



You just pull stuff out of your ass, don't you?

The ban on firearms in national parks goes back to Yellowstone. And Bush 43 signed a rule change that ALLOWED concealed carry in National Parks.

A Clinton appointed judge put a stop to that saying an impact study hadn't been done.

So you are 180 out from the truth.

Trew2Life
10-03-2012, 11:48
You just pull stuff out of your ass, don't you?

The ban on firearms in national parks goes back to Yellowstone. And Bush 43 signed a rule change that ALLOWED concealed carry in National Parks.

A Clinton appointed judge put a stop to that saying an impact study hadn't been done.

So you are 180 out from the truth.

I would say I was about 45 degrees away.

Firearms were first banned in national parks in the 1930s in a bid to curb poaching. The laws, implemented under President Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, allow visitors to national parks and refuges to possess firearms so long as they are "rendered temporarily inoperable or are packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use." The same as with interstate travel.

While Reagan was indeed a champion of the SARKBA, his post-Presidency opinion was somewhat different following the shooting of his Press Secretary Jim Brady. Reagan's opinion help support passage of the Brady Bill and the future assault weapons ban.

G36's Rule
10-03-2012, 11:55
You were 180 out, and you proved it with your post. Reagan didn't ban guns in the national parks system, and Bush tried to allow concealed carry in the same.

Foxtrotx1
10-03-2012, 12:05
The recent ruling made it clear they are leaving the decision to the states.

jp3975
10-03-2012, 13:59
1) True. I suppose gun rights could be regulated and taxed out of pratical existence. I doubt the likeliness of that happening to such an extreme, but I do understand your concerns.

Sitting justices said the courts where wrong to allow DC/Chicago residents to own handguns. Ginsburg said they where waiting for a "wiser" court to redefine the second to not be an individual right. Obama will appoint justices that will further that agenda.

You are willing to give up your "assault" rifle...will you give up your revolvers?

Btw...technically an assault rifle is a full auto gun.



2) True. It was a 'rider' that was added on to a totally unrelated bill, but that also helps to demonstrate the point I was trying to make: For a POTUS who is viewed as so anti 2nd amendment to have NOT passed/signed any anti-gun legislation (of his own) - and the only two gun laws he did sign will 'extend' gun rights, not limit them.

It should be interesting to note that it was Reagan who imposed the ban of firearms in National parks and GWB tried to impose similar restrictions before leaving office.

2B) The amendment expanding gun rights to Amtrak was strictly about gun rights and was supported by half of the Senate Democrats. BHO was under no obligation to sign it.

Do you know why he didnt pass gun laws? Because he couldnt and get re-elected. The laws he allowed to pass where minor. Who gives a crap if people can carry in parks and trains?

Had he vetoed those laws,guess what? Ammo for the right during the election.

Did he not appoint anti-gun far left libs to scotus?

Did he not tell the brady bunch that he was trying to go under the radar with gun control?

Did he not have an insanely horrible record on guns as a senator?

Didnt someone he knew in college say that he didnt believe people should be able to have guns?

You dont think he'll have more freedom to be himself in a second term? The only reason to be moderate then would be so that dems can keep congressional positions.



However, I empathize with communities who are trying desperately to cope with out of control gun-related chaos. What do they do? Everybody gets a gun? Nobody gets a gun? Where's the happy medium?


Tell me...how did the handgun bans work out? Crime went up after they where implemented.

Are criminals hindered with strict gun laws in place in high crime cities? Hell no.

The only people with difficulty getting guns are people who want to do it the legal way.

How has banning drugs worked out? Is it not easy to get MJ? Is it not easy to get meth, coke, etc?

Trew2Life
10-03-2012, 15:01
If the Left gets in, the Right sees an end to the 2A. If the Right gets in, the Left sees an end to pro-choice. I understand the urgency of each sides issue. However, the Left would have to come and get my guns, up close and personal-like. The Right could just sign laws upholding Personhood and DOMA. That concerns me a great deal. I have more daughters and grand daughters than I do firearms.

The war on guns, the war on drugs, the war on terror ... they're all failed policies, but what's the alternative? What's the compromised solution?

series1811
10-03-2012, 15:52
If the Left gets in, the Right sees an end to the 2A. If the Right gets in, the Left sees an end to pro-choice. I understand the urgency of each sides issue. However, the Left would have to come and get my guns, up close and personal-like. The Right could just sign laws upholding Personhood and DOMA. That concerns me a great deal. I have more daughters and grand daughters than I do firearms.
The war on guns, the war on drugs, the war on terror ... they're all failed policies, but what's the alternative? What's the compromised solution?

What a shocker. Someone who appears to be a DUer comes over and is not that concerned about gun rights (did they tell you what a "Glock" was?).

jp3975
10-03-2012, 16:47
If the Left gets in, the Right sees an end to the 2A. If the Right gets in, the Left sees an end to pro-choice. I understand the urgency of each sides issue. However, the Left would have to come and get my guns, up close and personal-like. The Right could just sign laws upholding Personhood and DOMA. That concerns me a great deal. I have more daughters and grand daughters than I do firearms.

The war on guns, the war on drugs, the war on terror ... they're all failed policies, but what's the alternative? What's the compromised solution?

The president cant ban abortion.

It is unlikely that any scotus justice will try to ban abortion, so your logic is flawed.

How do you feel about your daughters paying higher utility bills and having a harder time finding a job? Look forward to more of that in another obama term.

Are your daughters morons? Hopefully they are smart enough to use birth control whether abortion is banned or not.

But go on...keep voting the libs in and see where it takes the country.

Trew2Life
10-03-2012, 17:07
The president cant ban abortion.

It is unlikely that any scotus justice will try to ban abortion, so your logic is flawed.

How do you feel about your daughters paying higher utility bills and having a harder time finding a job? Look forward to more of that in another obama term.

Are your daughters morons? Hopefully they are smart enough to use birth control whether abortion is banned or not.

But go on...keep voting the libs in and see where it takes the country.

The POTUS can't ban abortions, but his SCOTUS appointees can. Didn't CJ White and Reinquest write very strong dissenting arguements in Roe v Wade? "no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States", and Reinquest wrote that the Courts ruling was 'flawed'.

A consertive POTUS with a conservative house/senate and two new SC appointee's like White or Reinquest is just as disasterous to me anything BHO may do.

jp3975
10-03-2012, 18:01
The POTUS can't ban abortions, but his SCOTUS appointees can. Didn't CJ White and Reinquest write very strong dissenting arguements in Roe v Wade? "no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States", and Reinquest wrote that the Courts ruling was 'flawed'.

A consertive POTUS with a conservative house/senate and two new SC appointee's like White or Reinquest is just as disasterous to me anything BHO may do.

Still doubtful that anyone today would reverse it.

Vote Obama I guess. We'll have abortion for sure and a ruined economy/country.

Im holding you personally responsible for the hell we will face after 4 more years.:tongueout:

Caver 60
10-04-2012, 12:06
I found the report I referenced in my post #67.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

It's a report published by the Subcommittee on the Constitution, of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, 2nd Session in February 1982. The Title is THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

The report contains both pro and anti views on the Second Amendment. I count 8 pro articles and 5 anti articles.

Read at least the prefaces and the first three articles, if not the whole thing. To me the pro side wins hands down. The anti sides have weak weak arguments IMO.

Trew2Life
10-04-2012, 15:49
I found the report I referenced in my post #67.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm



Very interesting read and compelling arguements for the 2A. Until they starting talking about the Dred Scott decision and then it got depressing.

Fox
10-04-2012, 22:15
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is hostile to the 2nd Amendment and she spoke on the value of dissenting opinions. She said that sometimes a dissent can become the majority of a “future, wiser court.”

jp3975
10-06-2012, 16:00
I found the report I referenced in my post #67.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

It's a report published by the Subcommittee on the Constitution, of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, 2nd Session in February 1982. The Title is THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

The report contains both pro and anti views on the Second Amendment. I count 8 pro articles and 5 anti articles.

Read at least the prefaces and the first three articles, if not the whole thing. To me the pro side wins hands down. The anti sides have weak weak arguments IMO.

Doesnt matter what side wins the debate when the justices/future obama justices have already decided their ruling should the issue come before them.