A possible win for Gun Rights in the Supreme Court?

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/201...iders-reach-second-amendment/?test=latestnews

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

imported post

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

imported post

McX wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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

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?

Click to expand...

http://www.scotusblog.com/?s=heller

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.

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?

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.....

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/supreme-court-likely-to-strengthen-individual-rights-to-gun-possession-laws/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Click to expand...

Wait, rights can be "extreme"?