BREAKING: Justices Rule That 2nd Amendment Also Governs State and Local Gun Laws

[PFXD 45]

Ha! Great question. Who knows. At a minimum, it means that blanket bans on handgun posession in the home are struck down everywhere, and it means a lot of subsequent challenges testing the limits of the constitutionality of state/local laws' restricting guns in various ways will be filed, and hashed out for decades and decades to come.

It means that States right have no power period. Dont know why people are happy this is a lose not a win.

It shows that the States have no power what so ever. Sorry to rain on your parades but while people are clapping, your clapping away your 10th amendment as well.


Chitown gun ban was Chittown and Illinois's business had nothing to do with the Supreme Court or our gun rights.

With out the other rights in place the 2A is useless as well.

 

[338Shooter]

It means that States right have no power period. Dont know why people are happy this is a lose not a win.

It shows that the States have no power what so ever. Sorry to rain on your parades but while people are clapping, your clapping away your 10th amendment as well.


Chitown gun ban was Chittown and Illinois's business had nothing to do with the Supreme Court or our gun rights.

With out the other rights in place the 2A is useless as well.

So you would be supportive of state and local level bans on newspapers? How about television broadcasts and the internet?

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Wow, PFX, this will take awhile to dissect all that:

It means that States right have no power period.

Doesn't mean that at all. It actually means quite the opposite doesn't it, when they explicitly retained the " 'common sense' gun laws are still ok" language? It's an *extraordinarily* narrow ruling (Heller), and this new case that puts Heller onto the states/cities, doesn't touch the vast majority of the nations' 20,000 plus federal, state and city gun laws.

Dont know why people are happy - this is a lose not a win.

You are exactly right about that, but I don't think for the reason that you think. It's because of the "common sense" laws are ok BS of HELLER - it's a tiny exception to the giant rule that violating the 2A of the constitution is hunky-dory. It's a tiny tiny win, in the long run, because we all know that eventually "common sense" laws will come to mean, to the SCOTUS, pretty much anything any legislator anywhere can dream up to 'keep us safe'. But in the short run, it's a victory to be celebrated. The only real win is strict scrutiny - the common sense BS crap is *very nearly* at the far other end of the spectrum, called the 'rational basis' test. We have lost overall with Heller in the long run, unless Heller is strengthened as we go along, which is unlikely. They've drawn *some* sort of intermediate-type scrutiny here, but sounds like it's closer the the rational basis end of the spectrum than other "intermediate scrutiny" tests, such as those explicity applied to laws discriminating on the basis of gender & mental retardation.

It shows that the States have no power what so ever.

As mentioned, they still retain enormous power in this area, unfortunately for you, me, the founding fathers, the 2A, and freedom, due to the narrow ruling of Heller itself (not McDonald).

Sorry to rain on your parades but while people are clapping, your clapping away your 10th amendment as well.

You will not find a bigger champion of the 10th amendment anywhere than me, but the state's rights are limited by what IS in the constitution. The 2A IS in the constitution. It's supposed to be a major limit on gun access regulations - unfortunately, it's only the tiniest of tiny limits with Heller/McDonald, at least so far... And the incorporation doctrine via the 14th amendment has been well-settled for decades, with the exception of the SCOTUS treating the 2A like a bastard child, and completely ignoring (until today) it's clear nature as being "fundamental". If you're arguing that the entire incorporation doctrine is so much bunk from the get-go, then I'm kinda with you on that. But it's so well-settled, and so entrenched in the jurisprudence going back to the 19teens and even before, that it's just impossible to change that without a constitutional amendment -- McDonald didn't make up incorporation - it just correctly applied the settled doctrine to the 2A - well all but the 4 with their heads firmly planted in their rectums applied the test correctly.

With out the other rights in place the 2A is useless as well.

No, not really - the opposite is true but that is not. In fact, that's precisely the entire POINT of the 2A envisioned by the Founders, the opposite of what you stated - that IF (or when) the government takes away the other rights, be it the 1A, 10A, or others, all is not YET lost necessarily - the 2A will at that point STILL be potentially useful to restore the democracy - with at least the possibility of the people taking back the lost rights through the barrel of a gun, if all political action fails, if the 2A is still in place. But it doesn't work the other way - if the 2A is gone first, and THEN the other rights are taken, then we're screwed.

Just my .02. Don't mean to offend....

 

[bettingpython]

It means that States right have no power period. Dont know why people are happy this is a lose not a win.

It shows that the States have no power what so ever. Sorry to rain on your parades but while people are clapping, your clapping away your 10th amendment as well.


Chitown gun ban was Chittown and Illinois's business had nothing to do with the Supreme Court or our gun rights.

With out the other rights in place the 2A is useless as well.

Really? Yet we so freely accept the incorporation of the rest of the bill of rights...

Do you like your right to due process? How about your freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Wait is this justice stevens in disguise?

 

[PFXD 45]

So you would be supportive of state and local level bans on newspapers? How about television broadcasts and the internet?

No , but thanks for asking anyways... Oh speaking of internet and all, congrads BO now has a internet kill switch. LOL

 

[338Shooter]

No , but thanks for asking anyways... Oh speaking of internet and all, congrads BO now has a internet kill switch. LOL

So you don't think the states rights are violated by incorporation of the 1-A, but it is a violation to incorporate the 2-A. Your logic seems flawed to me.

 

[PFXD 45]

Wow, PFX, this will take awhile to dissect all that:



Doesn't mean that at all. It actually means quite the opposite doesn't it, when they explicitly retained the " 'common sense' gun laws are still ok" language? It's an *extraordinarily* narrow ruling (Heller), and this new case that puts Heller onto the states/cities, not touching the vast majority of the nations 20,000 plus federal, state and city gun laws.

And you and I should know we need to take care of them locally not federally . Like I said Chitowns business has nothing to do with the rest of the countries.


You are exactly right about that, but I don't think for the reason that you think. It's because of the "common sense" laws are ok BS - it's a tiny exception to the giant rule that violating the 2A of the constitution is hunky-dory. It's a tiny tiny win, in the long run, because we all know that eventually "common sense" laws will come to mean, to the SCOTUS, pretty much anything any legislator anywhere can dream up to 'keep us safe'. But in the short run, it's a victory to be celebrated. The only real win is strict scrutiny - the common sense BS crap is *very nearly* at the far other end of the spectrum, called the 'rational basis' test. We have lost overall with Heller in the long run, unless Heller is strengthened as we go along, which is unlikely. They've drawn *some* sort of intermediate-type scrutiny here, but sounds like it's closer the the rational basis end of the spectrum than other "intermediate scrutiny" tests, such as those explicity applied to laws discriminating on the basis of gender & mental retardation.
I would agree that it would be a little bit of a win, to the point of it gets the word out more and more about the 2A.


As mentioned, they still retain enormous power in this area, unfortunately for you, me, the founding fathers, the 2A, and freedom.





You will not find a bigger champion of the 10th amendment anywhere than me, but the state's rights are limited by what IS in the constitution. The 2A IS in the constitution. It's supposed to be a major limit on gun access regulations - unfortunately, it's only the tiniest of tiny limits with Heller/McDonald, at least so far...

but the federal have even more limits.
Chitown gun ban was Chittown and Illinois's business had nothing to do with the Supreme Court or our gun rights.



No, not really - the opposite is true but that is not. In fact, that's precisely the entire POINT of the 2A envisioned by the Founders, the opposite of what you stated - that IF (or when) the government takes away the other rights, be it the 1A, 10A, or others, all is not YET lost, with at least the possibility of the people taking back the lost rights through the barrel of a gun, if all political action fails, if the 2A is still in place. But it doesn't work the other way - if the 2A is gone first, and THEN the other rights are taken, then we're screwed.

Just my .02. Don't mean to offend....

No offence taken, never will.

 

[PFXD 45]

So you don't think the states rights are violated by incorporation of the 1-A, but it is a violation to incorporate the 2-A. Your logic seems flawed to me.

My logic? Humm, well lets see here from what I have already said.

I said the SCOTUS should have no business telling you me, county, city, states, what, where, when, how, we can enforce any laws we please.

People seem to forget that the 2A and all other laws can be regulated on the state level. Constitution is a chain for the federal not the state gubberment.

Hence forth the phrase, Chitowns business is none of theirs. Remember those laws are wrote by people the Town of Chicago keeps electing. Though I am in support of the fact it gets the message out.

 

[PFXD 45]

Really? Yet we so freely accept the incorporation of the rest of the bill of rights...

Do you like your right to due process? How about your freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Wait is this justice stevens in disguise?

I wonder if you were trying to make a joke or insult me just wondering?

 

[Rod Snell]

Constitution is a chain for the federal not the state gubberment.

Not since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects
the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose
of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis
counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that
protects a right that is fundamental from an American
perspective applies equally to the Federal Government
and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14.
We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amend-
ment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the
Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for
further proceedings.
It is so ordered.

__________________
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf