Supreme Court extends gun rights to all 50 states

[bkg]

Two very important points for this case.

1 - the ruling was 5-4.
2 - it's completely hypocritical.

Libs: states have no right to determine laws for abortion, et al... but state's rights should apply for guns.
Conservatives: states have the right to determine laws for abortion, et al... but have no rights when it comes to guns.

IMHO - great win, bad ruling.

[Doc]

Two very important points for this case.

1 - the ruling was 5-4.
2 - it's completely hypocritical.

Libs: states have no right to determine laws for abortion, et al... but state's rights should apply for guns.
Conservatives: states have the right to determine laws for abortion, et al... but have no rights when it comes to guns.

IMHO - great win, bad ruling.

Unfortunately a really bad analogy........there is a specifically enumerated right in the Constitution regarding bearing arms.......there is no such enumerated right to an abortion, it was made up of "whole cloth" in Roe........

I would say that most conservatives Constitutional position on abortion (religious considerations aside) would be that Roe was a seriously flawed decision to start with, and since there is no specifically enumerated right in the Constitution vis-a-vis abortion, it should be left up to the states (and the voters) to decide.

Nothing hypocritical about it.......this would be the "origionalist" position on the Constitutionality of either issue.

doc

[soleil]

And I wonder how the DUmmies are going to react.

They are divided on this issue I believe.

I don't like guns, nor do I own a gun, but I am glad to have the option out there if I ever feel the need to buy one. It is our right.

[PatriotGame]

The fact the SCOTUS decision was NOT 9-0 is appalling. Damn man, just damn!


The BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) should be a convenience store, not a federal agency.

[bkg]

Unfortunately a really bad analogy........there is a specifically enumerated right in the Constitution regarding bearing arms.......there is no such enumerated right to an abortion, it was made up of "whole cloth" in Roe........

Completely agree, which is what (IMHO) makes it even more interesting.

I would say that most conservatives Constitutional position on abortion (religious considerations aside) would be that Roe was a seriously flawed decision to start with, and since there is no specifically enumerated right in the Constitution vis-a-vis abortion, it should be left up to the states (and the voters) to decide.

Nothing hypocritical about it.......this would be the "origionalist" position on the Constitutionality of either issue.

doc

Except that the 2nd applies to Congress... Technically not the states. The COTUS' job was to ensure the other two branches of the fed gov't were in check, not the states.

Still think it's a win, just think it "technically" may be argued as a bad ruling.

[Carl]

Completely agree, which is what (IMHO) makes it even more interesting.

Except that the 2nd applies to Congress... Technically not the states. The COTUS' job was to ensure the other two branches of the fed gov't were in check, not the states.

Still think it's a win, just think it "technically" may be argued as a bad ruling.

I don`t follow on that one.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now unless you are going off the wording of the first amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

...to suggest that the entire Bill of Rights is an open issue for each state to disregard I see nothing from the text to indicate that a state would have inherent rights to ignore the Constitution.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

[bkg]

I don`t follow on that one.

Now unless you are going off the wording of the first amendment...

...to suggest that the entire Bill of Rights is an open issue for each state to disregard I see nothing from the text to indicate that a state would have inherent rights to ignore the Constitution.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

The entire COTUS applies to the feds... States were free to do as they seemed fit. That was teh original design/intent.

The ruling is still a win.

[Carl]

The entire COTUS applies to the feds... States were free to do as they seemed fit. That was teh original design/intent.

The ruling is still a win.

Uhm...no.

The Constitution spelled out what the federal government could do and what it couldn`t do,the Bill of Rights and other amendments.
What wasn`t explicitly stated one way or the other was regarded as a states right.

That is why the abortion issue was acted upon by an activist court citing a "penumbra" finding a right of privacy.
They were wrong but had to force it

If what you assert was correct then a state such as mine or yours would have the right to say all conservative speech is forbidden as the right to free speech only applies to federal property.

That is a bizarre and dangerous interpretation of the Constitution.
It would lead to what amounts to a 50 country version of the EU.

[bkg]

Uhm...no.

The Constitution spelled out what the federal government could do and what it couldn`t do,the Bill of Rights and other amendments.
What wasn`t explicitly stated one way or the other was regarded as a states right.

That is why the abortion issue was acted upon by an activist court citing a "penumbra" finding a right of privacy.
They were wrong but had to force it

If what you assert was correct then a state such as mine or yours would have the right to say all conservative speech is forbidden as the right to free speech only applies to federal property.

That is a bizarre and dangerous interpretation of the Constitution.
It would lead to what amounts to a 50 country version of the EU.

I'm not the only person who has this view... The COTUS was put in place to keep the feds in check... amendments to that document don't (necessarily) change the focus of the document. Take a look at the 1st - "Congress shall.... " says nothing about the states, by your own point in the prevoius post.

Technically, the EU is a (form of a) republic, correct?

[Carl]

I'm not the only person who has this view... The COTUS was put in place to keep the feds in check... amendments to that document don't (necessarily) change the focus of the document. Take a look at the 1st - "Congress shall.... " says nothing about the states, by your own point in the prevoius post.

Technically, the EU is a (form of a) republic, correct?

So you would be cool with Minnesota saying you have committed an illegal act posting here as in our state you do not have a right to free speech?

[thundley4]

So you would be cool with Minnesota saying you have committed an illegal act posting here as in our state you do not have a right to free speech?

In all cases having to do with religion and government bodies, the USSC and other courts have always applied the 1st amendment, so that means to me that the COTUS applies to all government agencies with respect to rights.

[Carl]

In all cases having to do with religion and government bodies, the USSC and other courts have always applied the 1st amendment, so that means to me that the COTUS applies to all government agencies with respect to rights.

Exactly or otherwise you have a worthless document,and no union but rather 50 independent countries.

On edit...

Or in other words what the Articles of Confederation were.

[bkg]

So you would be cool with Minnesota saying you have committed an illegal act posting here as in our state you do not have a right to free speech?

Don't mistake the perspective with agreement with any gov't body limiting god given rights.

[formerlurker]

Oh my good shoes.    This was enjoyable.    I told you lewrockwell will rot your brain.  

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I think  that sums it up.  

[Carl]

Don't mistake the perspective with agreement with any gov't body limiting god given rights.

I am going to hit the hay but you have just said that it is wrong yet they have the right.(a state declaring sovereignty from the Constitution).

What then will prevent them if a liberal state government decides to act as a tyrant and has no respect for an overall system of basic federal law.
That isn`t calling for an all powerful central government either but one that at leasts binds the country together as a whole.

You are on very shaky and not well thought out ground imo.

[bkg]

Oh my good shoes.    This was enjoyable.    I told you lewrockwell will rot your brain.  

I think  that sums it up.  

Thanks for proving my point.

[formerlurker]

Thanks for proving my point.

It doesn't though does it?   

 

Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in the Court’s main opinion, did make one thing unmistakably clear to lower court judges: the right to have a gun for self-defense in the home is a “fundamental” constitutional right.   That one-word label carries enormous import.  Ordinarily, if a right is deemed to be fundamental, any law that seeks to limit it will be judged by the stiffest constitutional test there is: it must satisfy “strict scrutiny,” meaning that it will be struck down if the government’s need for it is not “compelling” and if the approach it takes is not the narrowest possible way to get at the problem.  Some laws can survive “strict scrutiny,” but not a great many do.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/analysis-gun-rights-go-national/

Neither Congress, or state/local government have authority to supercede that right. 

[bkg]

It doesn't though does it?   

 
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/analysis-gun-rights-go-national/

Neither Congress, or state/local government have authority to supercede that right. 

It does. What amendment came first? There's this thing called cronology.. the 10th happened after the 2nd... When the 2nd was passed, it applied to the feds...

Make sense yet?

And Alito's opinion is just that - an opinion. I still call it a huge win for the individual, just a bad judgement for the strict constitutionalist.

[formerlurker]

It does. What amendment came first? There's this thing called cronology.. the 10th happened after the 2nd... When the 2nd was passed, it applied to the feds...

Make sense yet?

And Alito's opinion is just that - an opinion. I still call it a huge win for the individual, just a bad judgement for the strict constitutionalist.

Then again, absolutely no.   

They were ratified on the same day. 

Congress is mentioned in many amendments, not the 2nd however. 

[bkg]

Then again, absolutely no.   

They were ratified on the same day. 

Congress is mentioned in many amendments, not the 2nd however. 

I'll concede that is a good point.

[Carl]

It does. What amendment came first? There's this thing called cronology.. the 10th happened after the 2nd... When the 2nd was passed, it applied to the feds...

Make sense yet?

And Alito's opinion is just that - an opinion. I still call it a huge win for the individual, just a bad judgement for the strict constitutionalist.

You are way out in a remote field on this one BKG...now you assert that the order of amendments matter,I can`t imagine how that could be used to interpret anything other then if one amendment specifically negates a previous one...the prohibition one.

Never ever has it been held that a state can arbitrarily,unilaterally pass a law that supersedes or undoes any part of the Constitution.
To suggest otherwise literally rips the pages to shreds.

Do you actually believe that a state can pass a law denying free speech,denying a right to vote,assemble peacefully and it is okay to do so?

[bkg]

You are way out in a remote field on this one BKG...now you assert that the order of amendments matter,I can`t imagine how that could be used to interpret anything other then if one amendment specifically negates a previous one...the prohibition one.

Never ever has it been held that a state can arbitrarily,unilaterally pass a law that supersedes or undoes any part of the Constitution.
To suggest otherwise literally rips the pages to shreds.

Do you actually believe that a state can pass a law denying free speech,denying a right to vote,assemble peacefully and it is okay to do so?

Of course the order matters. It speaks right to the heart of those who voted for them.

Read the 1st again - addressed right at congress. Don't confuse the topic of conversation with desired outcome - they are different. One can either discuss the different perspectives or ignore them. I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong, but at least engage the conversation. 

[Carl]

Of course the order matters. It speaks right to the heart of those who voted for them.

Read the 1st again - addressed right at congress. Don't confuse the topic of conversation with desired outcome - they are different. One can either discuss the different perspectives or ignore them. I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong, but at least engage the conversation. 

I have no idea what you are trying to say with what in my opinion is an obtuse statement.
Are you saying flat out that since the word Congress was used in the first amendment it means that states are free to make laws that do not follow the Bill of Rights,my examples being used.

It is a yes or no question.

What use is the Constitution at that point for anything or the value of ratifying it and entering into the Union?

[bkg]

I have no idea what you are trying to say with what in my opinion is an obtuse statement.
Are you saying flat out that since the word Congress was used in the first amendment it means that states are free to make laws that do not follow the Bill of Rights,my examples being used.

It is a yes or no question.

Yes.

What use is the Constitution at that point for anything or the value of ratifying it and entering into the Union?

COTUS was designed to keep the Fed gov't in check. That was the EXACT reason for entering into the union - the guarantee (well, in theory) of freedom for the states.

[Carl]

Yes.

COTUS was designed to keep the Fed gov't in check. That was the EXACT reason for entering into the union - the guarantee (well, in theory) of freedom for the states.

You do realize the ramifications of that opinion if it were widely held and acted upon don`t you?
What redress would one have for an oppressive state law that declared you did not have the right to free speech,you could not protest in any manner anything the state government decreed unacceptable,that any person could be held as a slave in a given state.

Those are extremes but serve as illustrations of what you are saying is correct and legal.
Think man...think.