Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: 'Supreme Court Agrees to Hear New Gun Case', JBS.org

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/546...r-new-gun-case

    There is considerable 'related content'.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    So, if the SCOTUS affirms that the RKBA is an individual Right, would this not make these transportation laws and school zone restrictions unconstitutional?

    Surely it would have some affect, no?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    So, if the SCOTUS affirms that the RKBA is an individual Right, would this not make these transportation laws and school zone restrictions unconstitutional?

    Surely it would have some affect, no?
    No.

    It already affirmed the 2nd as an individual right it in Heller. Scalia also said that this right is not absolute. "Shall not be infringed" does not =may not be regulated. The comments by Scalia indicated that municipalities may regulate firearms but not outright ban them. TheSCOTUSproclaimed the NFA as constitutional decades ago.

    We have a better chance using the WI Constitutional amendment to dump the transportation and school zone, etc laws. So long as you are carrying "for any lawful purpose", you should be able to open carry.


  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    So long as you are carrying "for any lawful purpose", you should be able to open carry.
    That is what I was referring to. I hope the SCOTUS makes this clear.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    That is what I was referring to. I hope the SCOTUS makes this clear.
    The SCOTUS shot down the original Federal school zone law, but it has left the state ones alone. At this point, we can not realistically expect a SCOTUS ruling to get rid of WI lawwhich restricts manor of carry.They are going to address a total ban by Chicago which is different. We need to fight our battle at the State level.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    So the case has no bearing on Wisconsin issues.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    This may not put me on anyone's Christmas card list but I don't want the SCOTUS's ruling having a bearing on our state's rights.

    If Obama gets a second term there is a good chance he will have the opportunity to change the balance of the court to the left. With that in mind I want state's rights to be intact. the more power that goes to the Feds the worse it is for all facets of our lives.

    OTOH, if SCOTUS finds in favor of the citizen in the Chicago case I understand it could be construed as: If the state can take away your U.S. Constituionally guaranteed rights then you have no U.S. Consitutional rights. Ex: If the state of Wisconsin outlaws certain types of speech ('bad' words) then they are de facto taking away your Constitutionally guaranteeed right to free speech.

    Conversely, if the state regulates firearms (CCW) but doesn't deny you the right to keep and bear arms that is not an infringement of your 2nd Amendment rights. (I would personally agree that the 2A is the nationwide CCW - but go with it for the sake of arguement).

    So, if I understand it correctly, the U.S. Constituion acts as a backstop to what the states can do.

    Thoughts?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    ShooterReady wrote:
    So, if I understand it correctly, the U.S. Constituion acts as a backstop to what the states can do.

    Thoughts?
    The US Constitution is the framework for our Government and as such it very clearly limits the powers of the Federal government (and some of State governments)explicitly to only those which it outlines. If we refer to the text of the 10th amendment:



    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.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Depends on whether or not the Supreme Courtrules thatthe 2Ais a fundamental right and incorporates it to the states. That is what is the underlying issuein the Chicago case.

Posting Permissions

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