Gun rights case likely to be landmark Supreme Court ruling, LATimes.com

TFred · Mar 2, 2010

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

Wow. I just skimmed through the transcript of todays testimonies in "McDonald", and that is an incredibly rude bunch of judges. The are constantly interrupting the presenters mid-sentence, breaking into their presentations mid-idea, and just generally some pretty bad conversationalists...

I mean, I know we have an "adverserial' judicial system, but it seems like the SC judges aren't nearly as concerned with actually JUDGING this case as they are with trying to somehow not step on the toes of previous Judges or over-ruling long-standing case law--EVEN when they admit that some of these long-standing cases are bad rulings and have set bad precedent. The amount of respect they have for prior rulings borders on religious zealotry, even when they admit some of these old rulings are in error.

Alan Gura is a better man than I. Were I in his shoes, I would have closed my briefcase about 3 pages into my presentation, calmly asked the Justices if they were going to continue to interrupt me, and then if they did so, I would have just handed my notes to the clerk, told them that I would return to the Court OF THE PEOPLE when they decided to use some freaking manners, and walked out...

...

And that's why you weren't the one standing there arguing the case before the court!

Of course, neither was I.

Seriously though... it's important to remember that the 60 minutes of oral argument are fairly small compared to the hundreds, if not thousands of pages of briefs and transcripts submitted for this case and brought up from the lower cases that got us here.

They already know what the lawyers plan to say. They want to find out whats in their head, but that they weren't planning to say.

TFred

slowfiveoh · Mar 2, 2010

imported post

I'm with Dreamer on this one. The context in which the presentation was given, was very rude and seemed to dance around the point that should really be assessed.

"Is equitable self-defense a natural human right"?

This should be the argument they are making, and while I understand utilizing previous cases is a great basis for the history of judicial decisions on topics, it does not always pick at the very core of an inalienable human right.

A lot of pretext was stated, in my opinion, specifying how much, or how little of a right can be incorporated, to include how they can finitely "chop up" the specifics of a "right", as to be "reasonably regulated" in the future.

If this is the case, then yeah, incorporation as it were, is just a string leading to a big knotted mess of a ball of yarn. I guess it would give lawyers new cases to focus on for the next 500 years, as they nitpick what can or should be "reasonably regulated" in reference to a "right".

I also liked the extremely specific hard left lean of Sotomayor, and her line of questioning. Like she was trying to lend the defense a hand.

The Defense definitely looked to be riding a bicycle backwards through the majority of the opening comments, and I am happy he was called on it.

My question is,...will incorporation relay the core of the right? Will it truly display to people WHY the 2nd Amendment exists?

I look forward to reading future commentary!

N6ATF · Mar 2, 2010

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

I'm with Dreamer on this one. The context in which the presentation was given, was very rude and seemed to dance around the point that should really be assessed.

"Is equitable self-defense a natural human right"?

Should really go with the actual language.

Does "... shall not be infringed." mean exactly what it says? Yes, it does.

So...

Go to hell, every single traitorous government agent. If you don't repeal or stop enforcing all your gun laws that only affect law-abiding citizens, you're going to prison for contempt, and we'll let you out as soon as you resign and buy your plane ticket for self-deportation and permanent exile to the UK.

KansasMustang · Mar 2, 2010

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

No, not "wasted space" really. Think about it a little more as to WHY someone might post the link AND article before getting testy with the OP. So relax, forget the beef, and try "chikin" for a change (Chick-fil-A's "Eat mor chickin")! [Besides, if you also mean that it takes too long to download a "long" post, drop your sorryDial-Up and get DSL or cable Internet...it's 2010 for gosh sakes, not 1993,and it's NOT expensive any more. Why should the rest of us dumb-downbecause ofslow dinosaur Dial-Up users?]

Anyway,as time goes on, at some point the LINK often no longer works and so eventually, the linked articlesare dropped orMOVED to somewhere else and can't be found. Maybe theygo to a website'sarchives or simply are deleted as "old news,"I don't know. But the point is, a thread then eventually refers to an article (link only posted)but it's not THERE anymore (like lots of linksto pictures)...so people can't read what the OP was talking about. Not good.

So if the link is posted, and as long as it still links to the article, people can go to the original source but later on, when the link no longer works, at least the article is STILL available in the thread for readers down the road because it's citedin the thread...and as long as the thread exists, the article also exists.

Make sense now?

-- John D.

What I was saying was, WHY POST the link AND the story??? And I'm sorry that I live out in the country, NO, I'm not, it's QUIET out here! We don't have access to high speed, cable, or even fiber-optic phone lines. I could get sattelite but the cost is prohibitive. Was just me makin a beef, didn't figger on gettin everyones panties in a wad.
So back to the story line. Here's hopin that they can give a CORRECT judgement, (IF you'd have paid attention to my POST) and not decided to vilify me for my bitch. And as I stated, we all know that when weapons are present, bad guys generally are not.

skidmark · Mar 3, 2010

imported post

Mr. Feldman, the attorney for Chicago, seemed to be stumbling a bit too much, trying to tell the Justices that they were right in Heller because it was a federal location but that the right would not existanywhere outside of a federal enclave.

I really enjoyed the give-and-take about if the right to keep and bear arms would be so fundamental as to exist under what the Framers called "unenumerated rights" if it had not been singled out for it's own Amendment. That led to the discussion of whether or not women & children had rights to property even though until the 20th century most states and the Federal courts did not recognize that as an existing right. Gura's answer, to paraphrase greatly, was "Yes, they did have those rights because when you opened your eyes and looked you found the right to be sitting in front of you, big as a house."

The bantering back and forth on the percentage of states that do or do not have statements of a right to keep and bear arms in the state constitution was a red herring that Gura, IMHO, should have attacked. Historical texts demonstrate that those states that did not include a RKBA statement in their constitution considered it to be "so fundamental" as to not require specific enumeration. Again, the "unenumerated rights" discussion.

Justice Sotamayor's comments will require a lot more study, but my initial impression is she is a lot more inclined to agree with incorporation - by whichever method - than, for instance, Justice Ginsburg.

stay safe.

skidmark

Bookman · Mar 3, 2010

imported post

skidmark wrote:

Mr. Feldman, the attorney for Chicago, seemed to be stumbling a bit too much, trying to tell the Justices that they were right in Heller because it was a federal location but that the right would not existanywhere outside of a federal enclave.

I really enjoyed the give-and-take about if the right to keep and bear arms would be so fundamental as to exist under what the Framers called "unenumerated rights" if it had not been singled out for it's own Amendment. That led to the discussion of whether or not women & children had rights to property even though until the 20th century most states and the Federal courts did not recognize that as an existing right. Gura's answer, to paraphrase greatly, was "Yes, they did have those rights because when you opened your eyes and looked you found the right to be sitting in front of you, big as a house."

The bantering back and forth on the percentage of states that do or do not have statements of a right to keep and bear arms in the state constitution was a red herring that Gura, IMHO, should have attacked. Historical texts demonstrate that those states that did not include a RKBA statement in their constitution considered it to be "so fundamental" as to not require specific enumeration. Again, the "unenumerated rights" discussion.

Justice Sotamayor's comments will require a lot more study, but my initial impression is she is a lot more inclined to agree with incorporation - by whichever method - than, for instance, Justice Ginsburg.

stay safe.

skidmark

I agree.

I work the graveyard shift, so I have the benefit of several hours in which a lot of words have been printed about this case. I've spent the past few hours gleaning what I could from various articles, as well as reading the transcript.

IMHO it seems there will be either a 5-4 or 6-3 (small possibility of a 7-2 decision, but I doubt it.) decision in favor of incorporation. The only real question is whether it will be under the Privileges & Immunities or the Due Process section of the 14th Amendment. From what I read, especially in the transcript, it looks as if it will be through Due Process, which will give the states greater leeway for regulation.

In any case, it seemed to me as if the majority of the justices were trying to lead Alan Gura and Clements to say the things they could use to justify incorporation, while at the same time they virtually backed the respondents lawyer, Feldman, into a corner.

Remember, this is only my opinion as IANAL.

I always carry · Mar 3, 2010

imported post

I grew up in Illinois. Lived there all my life. I lived in Chicago (metro) for 10 years. I moved to the city from the suburbs. The gun violence, which I heard from my 3rd story window, occurs on a nightly basis. Inner city residents hear gunfire ALL the time, day and night. After awhile you sort of get used to it, somehow. During my years there, I saw the crime steadily increase and observed the gang/criminal element all over the city, day and night. That is what convinced me to move out of state. I had simply had enough. Especially after I was awakened with the sounds of a gunfight on the corner where I lived. Guns poppin', tires screechin', people yellin'. The police arrived ten minutes later, found nothing and drove off. That scared the crap out of me. I lived in a good neighborhood too. Doesn't matter how cautious or "street smart" you are. At some point you will become a victim, be affected or witness crime first hand. The odds are actually IN your favor and that's a scary thought. The police, as hard as they try, even with "anti-loitering laws, curfew laws, GUN LAWS, etc., are helpless. Thugs who "illegally" carry a gun are NOT intimidated by anyone, not even the police. Hell, the gang bangers shoot at the cops too. They don't care about anything or anyone. Gang activity is so prevalent throughout Chicago, the LEO's are just plane overwhelmed. I think if the bad guys knew OR even thought, that they might run into a "cc'er", the crime rate would plummet. It's happened time and time again, all over the country. I now live in Kennesaw, Georgia and "open carry" regularly. I live safer "open carrying" with a GFL license and sleep better with a shotgun under my bed. I didn't know about the city's "reputation" until after I moved. How's that for fate?

Master Doug Huffman · Mar 3, 2010

imported post

Thank goodness for Kennesaw 'Big Shanty', Ga. In the year after its gun law was passed, the burglary rate was halved, halved in one year.

In SC there was a home invasion problem. AG Condon ended it by committing not to prosecute a person that defended his home with deadly force.

More Guns, Less Crime!

TFred · Mar 3, 2010

imported post

I always carry wrote:

I grew up in Illinois. Lived there all my life. I lived in Chicago (metro) for 10 years. I moved to the city from the suburbs. The gun violence, which I heard from my 3rd story window, occurs on a nightly basis. Inner city residents hear gunfire ALL the time, day and night. After awhile you sort of get used to it, somehow. During my years there, I saw the crime steadily increase and observed the gang/criminal element all over the city, day and night. That is what convinced me to move out of state. I had simply had enough. Especially after I was awakened with the sounds of a gunfight on the corner where I lived. Guns poppin', tires screechin', people yellin'. The police arrived ten minutes later, found nothing and drove off. That scared the crap out of me. I lived in a good neighborhood too. Doesn't matter how cautious or "street smart" you are. At some point you will become a victim, be affected or witness crime first hand. The odds are actually IN your favor and that's a scary thought. The police, as hard as they try, even with "anti-loitering laws, curfew laws, GUN LAWS, etc., are helpless. Thugs who "illegally" carry a gun are NOT intimidated by anyone, not even the police. Hell, the gang bangers shoot at the cops too. They don't care about anything or anyone. Gang activity is so prevalent throughout Chicago, the LEO's are just plane overwhelmed. I think if the bad guys knew OR even thought, that they might run into a "cc'er", the crime rate would plummet. It's happened time and time again, all over the country. I now live in Kennesaw, Georgia and "open carry" regularly. I live safer "open carrying" with a GFL license and sleep better with a shotgun under my bed. I didn't know about the city's "reputation" until after I moved. How's that for fate?

Makes you wonder, are the antis more afraid of losing their precious "gun free city", or of the inevitable results that will come once they do?

TFred

N6ATF · Mar 3, 2010

imported post

TFred wrote:

I always carry wrote:

I grew up in Illinois. Lived there all my life. I lived in Chicago (metro) for 10 years. I moved to the city from the suburbs. The gun violence, which I heard from my 3rd story window, occurs on a nightly basis. Inner city residents hear gunfire ALL the time, day and night. After awhile you sort of get used to it, somehow. During my years there, I saw the crime steadily increase and observed the gang/criminal element all over the city, day and night. That is what convinced me to move out of state. I had simply had enough. Especially after I was awakened with the sounds of a gunfight on the corner where I lived. Guns poppin', tires screechin', people yellin'. The police arrived ten minutes later, found nothing and drove off. That scared the crap out of me. I lived in a good neighborhood too. Doesn't matter how cautious or "street smart" you are. At some point you will become a victim, be affected or witness crime first hand. The odds are actually IN your favor and that's a scary thought. The police, as hard as they try, even with "anti-loitering laws, curfew laws, GUN LAWS, etc., are helpless. Thugs who "illegally" carry a gun are NOT intimidated by anyone, not even the police. Hell, the gang bangers shoot at the cops too. They don't care about anything or anyone. Gang activity is so prevalent throughout Chicago, the LEO's are just plane overwhelmed. I think if the bad guys knew OR even thought, that they might run into a "cc'er", the crime rate would plummet. It's happened time and time again, all over the country. I now live in Kennesaw, Georgia and "open carry" regularly. I live safer "open carrying" with a GFL license and sleep better with a shotgun under my bed. I didn't know about the city's "reputation" until after I moved. How's that for fate?

Click to expand...

Makes you wonder, are the antis more afraid of losing their precious "gun free city", or of the inevitable results that will come once they do?

TFred

They want Chicago to be the city of hostility, chaos and murder. If the RKBA is restored, their fellow criminals might go away, either by emigration or suicide (attacking law-abiding gun owners). As criminal safety is their ultimate priority, this scares the caca out of them.

Gun rights case likely to be landmark Supreme Court ruling, LATimes.com

TFred

Regular Member

slowfiveoh

Regular Member

N6ATF

Banned

KansasMustang

Regular Member

skidmark

Campaign Veteran

Bookman

Campaign Veteran

I always carry

Regular Member

Master Doug Huffman

Banned

TFred

Regular Member

N6ATF

Banned