Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: 7th Circuit Rules 2nd Amendment does NOT apply to the states

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Wisconsin, USA

    Post imported post

    Here is part the decision, I have attached the the full thing for review:
    Suppose Wisconsin were to decide that private ownership
    of long guns, but not handguns, would best serve the
    public interest in an effective militia; it is not clear that
    such a decision would be antithetical to a decision made in
    1868. (The fourteenth amendment was ratified in 1868,
    making that rather than 1793 the important year for
    determining what rules must be applied to the states.)
    Suppose a state were to decide that people cornered in
    their homes must surrender rather than fight back—in
    other words, that burglars should be deterred by the
    criminal law rather than self help. That decision would
    imply that no one is entitled to keep a handgun at home for
    self-defense, because self-defense would itself be a crime,
    and Heller concluded that the second amendment protects
    only the interests of law-abiding citizens. See United States
    v. Jackson, 555 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2009) (no constitutional
    right to have guns ready to hand when distributing illegal
    Our hypothetical is not as farfetched as it sounds. Selfdefense
    is a common-law gloss on criminal statutes, a
    defense that many states have modified by requiring
    people to retreat when possible, and to use non-lethal force
    when retreat is not possible. Wayne R. LaFave, 2 Substantive
    Criminal Law §10.4 (2d ed. 2003). An obligation to avoid
    lethal force in self-defense might imply an obligation to use
    pepper spray rather than handguns. A modification of the
    self-defense defense may or may not be in the best interest
    of public safety—whether guns deter or facilitate crime is
    an empirical question, compare John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns,
    Less Crime (2d ed. 2000), with Paul H. Rubin & Hashem
    Dzehbakhsh, The effect of concealed handgun laws on crime, 23
    International Rev. L. & Econ. 199 (2003), and Mark Duggan,
    More Guns, More Crime, 109 J. Pol. Econ. 1086 (2001)—but it
    is difficult to argue that legislative evaluation of which
    weapons are appropriate for use in self-defense has been
    out of the people’s hands since 1868. The way to evaluate
    the relation between guns and crime is in scholarly journals
    and the political process, rather than invocation of ambiguous
    texts that long precede the contemporary debate. See
    Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006) (state may reformulate,
    and effectively abolish, insanity defense); Martin v. Ohio,
    480 U.S. 228 (1987) (state may assign to defendant the
    burden of raising, and proving, self-defense).

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Kenosha, Wisconsin, USA

    Post imported post

    The Supreme Court ought to settle this once and for all. They kind of did with Heller though.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA

    Post imported post

    I don't agree with some of their banter but their decision is correct. I didn't agree with the supreme courts resoning and banter in the Heller decision either, but their decision was correct.

    “for it is this Court’s

    prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents.” 522

    U.S. at 20. See also, e.g.,
    Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12


    That pretty much says it.

    I wonder how fast this could be considered by SCOTUS. Hopefully soon.


    Lex malla, lex nulla

Posting Permissions

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