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

imported post

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5460-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-new-gun-case

There is considerable 'related content'.

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

So long as you are carrying "for any lawful purpose", you should be able to open carry.

Click to expand...

That is what I was referring to. I hope the SCOTUS makes this clear.

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

That is what I was referring to. I hope the SCOTUS makes this clear.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

So the case has no bearing on Wisconsin issues.

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.