Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: CNN Discusses McDonald v Chicago

  1. #1
    Regular Member OPS MARINE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    392

    Post imported post

    I know this is long, but this is a conversation I watched this morning on CNN between Tony Harris, an anchor and Jeffrey Toobin, Legal Analyst for CNN:

    Tony asked a question about activists on the Supreme Court, and following is the conversation sparked by that question.

    Jeffrey: "Activists is one of those epithets that is thrown around when it comes to Supreme Court Justices. But, as it turns out, everybody likes a certain kind of activist. Liberals like Roe v Wade which was a decision to overturn abortion laws in many states in the Union. That is certainly an activist decision. But Conservatives like activism, too. They like the Heller decision two years ago that overturned GUN CONTROL LAWS. Democratically passed, democratically elected officials passed gun control laws in Supreme Court struck down decisions turned that down. The Supreme Court struck down part of the McCain/Feingold law. That was certainly an activist decision...so there are Liberal activists and Conservative activists. I think that term should be retired because it's not helpful but i don't have high hops for it being so."

    Tony: "Real quick, Jeffrey, thre was a decision pending soon, uh, McDonald v Chicago, a case examining the legality of Chicago's handgun ban. Why don't you set up what's at issue there and I know you've got some thoughts on the difficulty the COurt is going to have in squaring the decision that came down in the D.C. case."

    Jeffrey: "Correct. In the Heller case two years ago, that was the case that said the District of Columbia, which is considered part of the Federal Government, may not ban handguns under the Second Amendment which speaks of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The question in the case you mentioned is wheteher the State of Illinois can ban handguns because the Bill of Rights speaks directly to the Federal Government. The Amendments say Congress shall pass no law, shall make no law...but over a series of decisions the Justices have applied many, not all...many of the provisions of Bill of Rights against the State.

    The question is, may states as well as the Federal Government be restricted in passing gun control laws, and given the oral arguments, given the way the Courts are going, I think the answer will be YES...States will be banned from making gun control laws but it's one of the many contentious issues the new Justice will face..."

    "Most people respect the badge. Everybody... respects the gun."

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    Hey OPS Marine,

    I find it so grating for people like Tubin, who is supposedly educated, when theyget caught-up in "group think."

    The Bill of Rights was a quid pro quote to get the Constitution ratified by the several states. Of course the Bill of Rights applied to the states. The Bill of Rights were repealed (unconstitutionally) to keep slavery alive.

    Unbelievable.

    markm

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    OPS MARINE wrote:
    The question is, may states as well as the Federal Government be restricted in passing gun control laws, and given the oral arguments, given the way the Courts are going, I think the answer will be YES...States will be banned from making gun control laws but it's one of the many contentious issues the new Justice will face..."
    Am I reading this right. The states will be banned from making gun control laws. If this happens, I promise to wet my pants.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    OPS MARINE wrote:
    The question is, may states as well as the Federal Government be restricted in passing gun control laws, and given the oral arguments, given the way the Courts are going, I think the answer will be YES...States will be banned from making gun control laws but it's one of the many contentious issues the new Justice will face..."
    Am I reading this right. The states will be banned from making gun control laws. If this happens, I promise to wet my pants.
    Hey Gundude,

    Toobin's definition of "gun contol laws" is completely different than our opinion. To a kool-aid drinker, gun control means one thing, the banning of all weapons. Allowing a citizen the right to own a gun under severe regulation is not gun control to them. Gun taxes, fees, permits, licenses, training courses, ammo restrictions, and competency exams equals "shall not be infringed."

    markm

  5. #5
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    I think saying that states will be banned from making gun control laws is an inaccurate statement.

    States (like IL, CA, HI) will still propose and (legislatively) pass gun control laws. But when they are challenged in court the laws will not stand.

    There really is no "constitutionality" committee in our legislative process. The legislators propose and pass bills knowing they are unconstitutional and leave it to us mere peons to work it out and challenge it in the courts (on our dime).
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    To me, it seems it will depend on the McDonald case. Whether it's a fundamental right. Whether they incorporate using the privileges or imunities clause or the due process clause. Whether they use strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. This guy may not know what he is talking about.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    To me, it seems it will depend on the McDonald case. Whether it's a fundamental right. Whether they incorporate using the privileges or imunities clause or the due process clause. Whether they use strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. This guy may not know what he is talking about.
    Hey Gundude,

    I think the Supremes will photocopy (in a sense anyway) the Heller decision and apply it to the states.They willorderinferior courts to create judgements consistant with Heller, which doesallow jurisdictions to createa permitting and registration process.

    It would be very strange for the court to reverse or drastically change a three year old judgement.

    markm

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
    Gundude wrote:
    To me, it seems it will depend on the McDonald case. Whether it's a fundamental right. Whether they incorporate using the privileges or imunities clause or the due process clause. Whether they use strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. This guy may not know what he is talking about.
    Hey Gundude,

    I think the Supremes will photocopy (in a sense anyway) the Heller decision and apply it to the states.They willorderinferior courts to create judgements consistant with Heller, which doesallow jurisdictions to createa permitting and registration process.

    It would be very strange for the court to reverse or drastically change a three year old judgement.

    markm
    Sounds about right. Has SCOTUS ever reversed itself. They don't seem to want to reverse Slaughterhouse, even if everyone thinks it's a 130 yr old lame decision.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

Posting Permissions

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