• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Examiner.com: Obama official says Second Amendment applies to states

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

Perhaps he was just saying that it is inevitable that incorporation is going to happen. Not necessarily that it's what he wants.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

rodbender wrote:
Perhaps he was just saying that it is inevitable that incorporation is going to happen. Not necessarily that it's what he wants.
Well, the legal academy thinks in terms of doctrines, sort of like a scientist thinks in terms of physical laws- a doctrine that says after the civil war fundemental rights formerly applicable only to constrain federal power now apply to the state power too cannot be easily bent to omit the Second Amendment once it is held to provide an individual right - as Sunstein says, it "does follow."

The interesting part will then be, what does the individual rightrealy mean - to carry in public? To own without registration? To be be able to buy a gun from a dealer at age 18?
 

usaf0906

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
301
Location
, ,
imported post

Mike wrote:
rodbender wrote:
Perhaps he was just saying that it is inevitable that incorporation is going to happen. Not necessarily that it's what he wants.
Well, the legal academy thinks in terms of doctrines, sort of like a scientist thinks in terms of physical laws- a doctrine that says after the civil war fundemental rights formerly applicable only to constrain federal power now apply to the state power too cannot be easily bent to omit the Second Amendment once it is held to provide an individual right - as Sunstein says, it "does follow."

The interesting part will then be, what does the individual rightrealy mean - to carry in public? To own without registration? To be be able to buy a gun from a dealer at age 18?
yes, yes, and yes.:dude:
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

cbackous wrote:
Mike wrote:
rodbender wrote:
Perhaps he was just saying that it is inevitable that incorporation is going to happen. Not necessarily that it's what he wants.
Well, the legal academy thinks in terms of doctrines, sort of like a scientist thinks in terms of physical laws- a doctrine that says after the civil war fundemental rights formerly applicable only to constrain federal power now apply to the state power too cannot be easily bent to omit the Second Amendment once it is held to provide an individual right - as Sunstein says, it "does follow."

The interesting part will then be, what does the individual rightrealy mean - to carry in public? To own without registration? To be be able to buy a gun from a dealer at age 18?
yes, yes, and yes.:dude:
We can only "HOPE"
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
rodbender wrote:
Perhaps he was just saying that it is inevitable that incorporation is going to happen. Not necessarily that it's what he wants.
Well, the legal academy thinks in terms of doctrines, sort of like a scientist thinks in terms of physical laws- a doctrine that says after the civil war fundemental rights formerly applicable only to constrain federal power now apply to the state power too cannot be easily bent to omit the Second Amendment once it is held to provide an individual right - as Sunstein says, it "does follow."

The interesting part will then be, what does the individual rightrealy mean - to carry in public? To own without registration? To be be able to buy a gun from a dealer at age 18?

Well, it does state 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'.

Given that every person is part of 'the people'... it would seem to be cut and dry IMO. But hey, I was only taught to read / speak the words as written.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

darthmord wrote:
Well, it does state 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'.

Given that every person is part of 'the people'... it would seem to be cut and dry IMO. But hey, I was only taught to read / speak the words as written.
Fine, but our constitutional doctrine balances state and federal powers with individual rights - rights are always subject to "reasonable regulation." Sovereign states for example are empowered with the full panoply of "police powers" to regulate us, while the federal government is not.

Shouting "shall not be infringed" is great for speeches to pro-gun audiences, and pushing o politicians to vote pro-gun, but at the end of the day "SHANBI" will not rule out many or most regulations at law.

A "fundemental" right is due "strict scrutiny," meaning the government has the burden to justify the regulation - enumerated rights are traditionally thought to be "fundemental," so in theory, the Second Amendment is due strict scrutiny - that's the goal, to get courts to recognize strict scrutiny for the Second Amendment which makes the burden higher on teh government to show that a regulation is "reasonable."
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
[SNIP]

A "fundemental" right is due "strict scrutiny," meaning the government has the burden to justify the regulation - enumerated rights are traditionally thought to be "fundemental," so in theory, the Second Amendment is due strict scrutiny - that's the goal, to get courts to recognize strict scrutiny for the Second Amendment which makes the burden higher on teh government to show that a regulation is "reasonable."


Yes! This is what I was thinking. I was a little disappointed that Heller didn't apply strict scrutiny to DC. It seems that the justices were a little affraid of the can of worms they would open up with that but they shouldn't be; that's not their job.It's their job to interpret and nothing more IMHO.

Iwould hope that if it is incorporated when they hear the Chicago case strict scrutiny will be applied.
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

Interesting conversation with a passenger from South Africa today: He asked me if I would open a gun store and shooting range in D.C. if I could. His point (the argument was about "reasonable regulation, and I am talking here about a hardline old fashioned Afrikaaner so understand where his reasoning was coming from ) was that D.C. is full of "savages" who would likely raid the shop or the range and the police would likely provide little protection; and as for renting guns out at a range, why, that would just be asking for trouble in a place like D.C. This, he said, would be "reasonable regulation" (quote) "Because Washgton DC is full of Kaffirs and if you must arm them or no one, then you must disarm everyone". :shock::uhoh:

Well!

I responded that for some strange reason the ranges here in Virginia had no such problem, and that there are a God's plenty of criminals here who are as white as Wonder Bread (and just as smart). And I told him to go into any gun store in Virginia and look around and realize that the owners and help are quietly but obviously armed with some serious artillery, and at the ones with ranges especially there are LOTS of LEOs, ditto armed. If you are a newcomer you will be watched circumspectly but closely, I mean, people who sell firearms legally and for a living are almost ipso facto NOT fools.And of course I pointed out to him that "Kaffirs" come in the whole spectrum. So of course I would open a gun store/range in DC (if I could) but would start by building an LEO clientele with complimentary range timeand family events, etc. before I started advertising to the general public.

His response was that "letting Kaffirs have guns is a mistake. I'll never understand it".

Now, let's take the gentlleman's reasoning and apply it to the advocates of gun control in "big cities". You know, folks like Fenty, Bloomberg, Daley, et al. For that matter, let's take the Lord Mayor of Alexandria, one William Euille who was born and raised in the projects and who would turnAlexandria into pre-Heller DC if that pesky State Preempton would just move to one side. Hells bells, let's take Rudy Giuliani, the white former Mayor of New York City ad erstwhile Presidential Candidate who begged off NYC's onerous gun laws to the NRA by saying that New York was a "special case". Take everything these antis havesaid about "reasonable" gun control and it boils down to:

"Kaffirs......If you must arm them or no one, then everyone must be disarmed"

THAT is "reasonable gun control" :what:

It is also RACISM.

By the lights of these same people (except maybe Giuliani) criticizing"The First Black President" for his idiotic policies is "racist" (which it is not ) BUT denying guns to everyone because poor Black neighborhoods are crime ridden is not "racist" (which, in addition to being STUPID it certainly is).

One more thing before I close: To our Black bretheren here at OCDO my use of certain terminology was only an accurate depiction of what the person in question said, In no way do I wish to insult or hurt any of our membership. And I am pretty sure not a few of you have had these conclusions floating aaround in your heads long before I wrote this post....... Alexcabbie.

 

N00blet45

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
475
Location
Walton County, Georgia, ,
imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:
"Because Washgton DC is full of Kaffirs and if you must arm them or no one, then you must disarm everyone". :shock::uhoh:
Isn't that the mentality of most antis? Since some people use firearms in a negative way no one should have them. I think they're afraid of some people being armed (probably unnecessarily) and would rather everyone be disarmed.

As to the original topic, I find it to be a sort of legal gymnastics. The 2nd amendment seems to be the odd man out for some reason. No other right is set to such a standard.

One case says that you can't have weapons unless they have militia value yet the law prevents people from owning weapons that have too much militia value. All other rights are incorporated yet the 2nd isn't. All other mentions of "the people" refers to individuals except for in the 2nd (until very recently).

No other right is given the same legal doublespeak.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

N00blet45 wrote:
Alexcabbie wrote:
"Because Washgton DC is full of Kaffirs and if you must arm them or no one, then you must disarm everyone". :shock::uhoh:
Isn't that the mentality of most antis? Since some people use firearms in a negative way no one should have them. I think they're afraid of some people being armed (probably unnecessarily) and would rather everyone be disarmed.

As to the original topic, I find it to be a sort of legal gymnastics. The 2nd amendment seems to be the odd man out for some reason. No other right is set to such a standard.

One case says that you can't have weapons unless they have militia value yet the law prevents people from owning weapons that have too much militia value. All other rights are incorporated yet the 2nd isn't. All other mentions of "the people" refers to individuals except for in the 2nd (until very recently).

No other right is given the same legal doublespeak.
The only right that shall not be infringed... into near oblivion. Traitors, the lot of them.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:
Interesting conversation with a passenger from South Africa today....

His response was that "letting Kaffirs have guns is a mistake. I'll never understand it".
I hope you drove him to Anacostia and kicked him out.

Isn't it fun when someone assumes that you share their racism and politics just because you share their level of melanin?
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

His mistake was - oddly enough - that he assumed my opposition to Obama was racially based. There are lots of good conservative black politicians - J.C. Watts comes to mind - who I would havevoted for over Obama OR McCain in a heartbeat. (Not Alan Keyes, however. Keyes is just plain nutso IMHO )

No, I didn't kick him out in Anacostia (although it was on the way as we were headed to (more irony) BWI ThurgoodMarshall.) I regret I wasn't in Pretoria when he counted his money and realized that two of the tens he handed me were actually $100 bills. "ACH! I am IDIOT!" Yep. :lol:

As I pointed out our mayor here in Alexandria shares the same attitude, although he is black and raised in the projects. So for that matter did the late Carl Rowan, the black washington Post columnist who shot and wounded a 19 year old white kid for the life threatenng offense of skinnydipping in his pool. And while the kid was fleeing, at that. I don't believe DC charged Rowan with a felony (as according to DC law he should have been) becuse of some tortured interpreting of the statutes holding the gun legal because it actually belonged to a relative who was an FBI agent. In both of these cases we have black politicians whom have sold out to the racist/elitist Liberal-schmiberal view that excepts THEM because they have worked hard and toed the line enough to become part of the elite who feel themselves enitled to lord it ove us all (for our own good ). The attitudes of that old Boertrekker were really not so far out of line with modern anti-gun liberalism. That was my point.
 
Top