Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: A possible win for Gun Rights in the Supreme Court?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Holmen, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    Heres the link for it. I posted a thread late last week, but there are updates now, and a better written article than the last. They need a 5-4 Majority vote to pass the ruling, and 5 of the justices who ruled in favor; on the Heller case are involved. Lets pray they get it right. Heres the link

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...est=latestnews

  2. #2
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    are there any blog sites, or daily reporting, or even live coverage we could get in on to see how things arfe going on a daily basis?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    It is a national issue so, surprise, there is considerable comment in the national news forum

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/39012.html

    I would guess a slam dunk for gun rights and a possible win for more extreme civil rights from SCOTUS if they incorporate via the 'privileges or immunities' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  4. #4
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    doug, i found someone on the forum who had posted the transcript(s), and i tried to plow through them. i couldn't rach any conclusions. they seemed to argue on a variety of areas, and topics, i couldn't see a real focus on anything. i still hope for the best. how much longer will the arguements go on? in the transcripts it appeared like one side or the other had presented their case, but again, it was hard for me to read, and interpret anything.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Arguments are over and done with.

    The transcript is of Gura, then NRA's boy, then Chicago's and then Gura's rebuttal. The questions from the Justices are the best indications of their thought.

    Their decision has been predicted as early as June but I don't know why. I expect a decision by October, the end of the session.

    I expect incorporation against the States into the Fourteenth Amendment via its 'due process' clause. I am a bit surprised, expecting it to be by way of the 'privileges or immunities' clause because that would allow expanded civil rights by this left leaning court.

    The bottom line? Nothing will change for us and for Wisconsin for a long time.

  6. #6
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    it seemed like they kept going back to a recent decision they made on state's right to regulate, and at least to me, it seemed like the court kept hiding behind that, saying it had already been decided. i noticed they seemed to loosely mention open carry, but only in one sentence, and i didn't see anything else about it again, other than one justice remarking about people going about waving guns in the street. kinda sounded rather loose coming from a supreme court justice. if it's all over, it sure went fast, faster than i could ever comprehend. i guess now we sit on pins and needles and wait.

  7. #7
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    i don't understand the incorporation by 14th amendment thing at all either.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    i don't understand the incorporation by 14th amendment thing at all either.
    In a nutshell:
    Originally, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. The 14th amendment basically allows the S.C. to apply those rights to the states. So, once an amendment (or portion thereof) has been incorporated to the states, it applies to the state and local governments as well.

    For example, the states must abide by the first amendment, because it has been incorporated, but don't need to abide by the 7th amendment (Right to jury trial in CIVIL cases), which has not been incorporated
    Rand Paul 2016

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Winneconne, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    are there any blog sites, or daily reporting, or even live coverage we could get in on to see how things arfe going on a daily basis?
    http://www.scotusblog.com/?s=heller

  10. #10
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    so the right to a jury trial is a federal right, but some states do not have to give you that right?
    so this case is going to incorporate the 2nd amendment rights to the states. and if the justices decide; shall not be infringed, then we get the whole enchilada, but they are already signalling they are sticking with limitations they placed on stuff in a previous case?
    for such a major decision, and all the details it encompasses, they sure didn't give much time to talking about it in the court.

  11. #11
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    i went back, and read stuff again, the court didn't seem too interested in hearing from the national rifle association guy. and it sounds like the only thing they want to decide is the right of gun ownership. but it's still majority rule, if justices decent, it doesn't realy matter?

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    The Justices make their decision, the decision, based on their experience and good judgment. The briefs and arguments are opportunities to present facts and ideas that the judges may not have considered. In the case of McDonald's friends of the court briefs, for example, it is very unlikely that any brief was read by a justice, but they were carefully read and synopsized by the law clerks and their authorities examined for weight in the particular argument.

    Maybe a way to see the process is to compare it to a legislative decision to be made by a 'r'epublican and a 'd'emocrat. When an issue is presented I, as a 'r'epublican, familiarize myself with it and the surrounding issue and weigh it against my principles to make my decision. If my neighbors and constituents have opinions - always - then I listen for aspects that I may not have considered and that may weigh one way or the other. A clamor of yeas and nays is just noise without good reasoning being attached.

    A good democrat is just a mouthpiece for the madding crowd and sensitive to the voices heard loudest. A liberal-democrat judge doesn't even have to be an attorney, conceptually, but just listen to her puppeteers.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    i went back, and read stuff again, the court didn't seem too interested in hearing from the national rifle association guy. and it sounds like the only thing they want to decide is the right of gun ownership. but it's still majority rule, if justices decent, it doesn't realy matter?
    For a good example of how NOT to be a good justice; read anything that Breyer said, anywhere.

    Anyway, McX, from the briefs the justices know pretty much what everyone's position is. The oral arguments are for them to probe a little deeper into what was left unsaid. That, and theater.....
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post


    March 3, 2010

    (HMG) – The Supreme Court looks likely to strengthen gun possession laws and give federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing on Second Amendment rights. The court’s 5 to 4 2008 decision along its conservative-liberal split in District of Columbia v. Heller, established for the first time that the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms” referred to an individual right, not one related to military service. At oral arguments Tuesday, the court considered whether its 2008 decision voiding the District of Columbia handgun ban should be extended to the rest of the country, and ensure that state and local gun-control laws do not interfere with it. The case left open the question of whether the Second Amendment should be applied to states and localities like most of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.The McDonald v. Chicago, case is the logical follow up to consider whether, the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right like freedom of speech. The case involves 76-year-old Chicago resident Otis McDonald, who claimed the city’s 1982 ban on handguns left him prey to street gangs. While the court’s conservative majority appears almost certain to strike down Chicago’s ordinance, and thus rule that residents have a right to a handgun at home, the justices might decide nothing further. Instead, in oral arguments Tuesday, they indicated they need not spell out this year the true scope of the Second Amendment and its “right to keep and bear arms.” While only Chicago, and its Oak Park suburb, has a total ban on handguns, many cities and states regulate who can have a gun and where they can take it, all of which might be open to challenge once the court rules. A decision in the case is expected this summer.

    http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/03/03/...ssession-laws/







  15. #15
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    thanks guys, the information you gave me is alot more than what i was able to find, or what they put in the paper. it seemed like a pretty hostile environment on that court. the judges can speak in broad terms, but limit attorney answers to a specific topic. they would ask broad questions, but yet limit time to respond. didn't seem fair, nor like what they had in the school books on american judicial system back in the day in school. i thought it would be a freindly atmosphere, with the justices saying; speak and convince us. i am surprised by their taking a major issue, and only focusing on one point. they seemed pissed to even have it before them, but then they virtually guarentee other aspects and details of it will be brought back before them again. i see now why they say 'argue' a case before the supreme court. i heard that if a lawyer argues a case before the court, he gets a nice certificate. these days he probably gets sent down to the supreme court suovinere shop to get a free t-shirt that reads: i argued a case before the supremem court, got b***h slapped around, and all i got was this crummy t-shirt.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    A neighbor was solicitor for Washington, DC and has stories. He will not speak lawyerly to me on guns, though we both are pro gun, and he is my personal attorney.

  17. #17
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    my corporate attorney said he used to ride to school with one of the supreme court justices, i should ask him if he was a nice guy.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    I imagine that, like 0-6 skippers, by that grade they're all good guys but the occasional horse's behind proves the rule.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    West Allis, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    With the wife at school, the kids down for a nap, and postponing the houswork that desperately needs completion, I have finally finished reading the arguments. All I can say is wow. And I have to agree with Doug, "The questions from the Justices are the best indications of their thought."



  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    It is a national issue so, surprise, there is considerable comment in the national news forum

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/39012.html

    I would guess a slam dunk for gun rights and a possible win for more extreme civil rights from SCOTUS if they incorporate via the 'privileges or immunities' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    Wait, rights can be "extreme"?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    The court was very clearly hostile to the P or I route of incorporation, but very receptive to the due process route. What does this mean to the average pro-gun reader of this site? Not much.

    What DOES matter is that they will incorporate the 2nd amendment against the states. And what DOES matter is which standard of scrutiny will be used to determine if local restrictions are allowable. Best way to explain this is with an example:

    Say a state has a law that says you cannot possess assault weapons, and someone sues to overturn the regulation. The state must show that though the law may appear to violate the constitution, the law is needed and should be allowed because the benefit of the law outweighs the slight constitutional violation. When trying to decide the case, the court needs to have a framework to work within when determining if the law's benefit does actually outweigh the constitutional violation. So what exactly does the state have to show?

    Under the most lenient form of scrutiny, the rational basis test, they only have to show their argument is rationale. We wont spend anymore time on this because no one uses this test when it comes to the 2nd amendment, and although Heller did not settle on a standard of review, it plainly ruled out the deferential rational basis test. This is the standard of review the Brady people want used.

    Intermediate scrutiny. In its usual formulation, this standard of review requires the government to establish that the challenged statute serves an important governmental interest and the means it employs are substantially related to the achievement of that interest. Under intermediate scrutiny, the state
    need not establish a close fit between the statute’s means and its end, but it must at least establish a reasonable fit.---This is a pretty good standard of review for us pro-gun folks, but what we really want is:

    Strict Scrutiny-This is the big one, the one we really want:
    First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. The state must show that they have a true, compelling interest in violating a fundamental constitutional right. They have to prove that banning assault weapons will substantially reduce the number of people killed. We all know they cannot do that.

    Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much, (over broad), or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored. Seeing as "assault weapons" are used in just a few percent of homicides their ban would fail as being too under-inclusive.

    Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. Basically, they have to show that they are violating people's rights the least way possible to achieve their goal. There is no way they can successfully argue a total ban on anything is the lease restrictive means of preventing anything.

    The good news is, barring anything weird happening, we should have a winner here boys and girls and what I see happening is this:
    The gun free school zones laws, both federal and state will be struck down because the government will have to show having a gun within 1,000 feet of a school is dangerous enough to violate your rights, but having a gun 1001 feet is safe. Show me the studies, show me the scientific research, show me the statistics regarding school shootings that prove 1,000 feet is the magic number. They wont be able to. But they will be able to show prohibiting a gun ON SCHOOL GROUNDS is ok.

    Hope that makes things clearer.

    Lastly, I want to state one thing. I am no fan of the NRA. I do not like, and was really pissed off at the way they high-jacked this case from Gura and The 2nd amendment foundation. But in the end, it will be the NRA's argument-due process, that will prevail.






Posting Permissions

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