Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Nordyke V. King 9th Circuit En Banc.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vvvvvvv" data-source="post: 1208943" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p>The problem is that it will basically start back at square one again with a panel that is 99% likely (in my opinion) to rule the same way they did previously. Additionally, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in McDonald that longstanding prohibitions in sensitive places are still Constitutional.</p><p></p><p>From pp 39-40 of the plurality opinion in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf" target="_blank">McDonald v. Chicago</a>:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Here's what Justice Breyer had to say about that in his dissent at pp 14-15:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Justice Breyer also posed 24 questions that the Court will hypothetically have to answer on pp 12-13:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You also have to remember that these cases were decided on ideological lines. That means that all it takes to render these decisions effectively meaningless is a narrow interpretation.</p><p></p><p>You also need to keep in mind that these two rulings together could easily turn out to be regulation-enabling with the fact that the Court presumed prohibitions in "sensitive places" to be Constitutional in Heller and affirmed that presumption in McDonald. It's reasonable to predict that a government could define a neighborhood with an abnormally high crime rate as a "sensitive place" and put prohibitions on firearms in place in those areas. Then you run into Equal Protection issues, but then you end up with more cases decided on ideological lines of what is a reasonable prohibition for a sensitive place.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 1208943, member: 5151"] The problem is that it will basically start back at square one again with a panel that is 99% likely (in my opinion) to rule the same way they did previously. Additionally, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in McDonald that longstanding prohibitions in sensitive places are still Constitutional. From pp 39-40 of the plurality opinion in [URL="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf"]McDonald v. Chicago[/URL]: Here's what Justice Breyer had to say about that in his dissent at pp 14-15: Justice Breyer also posed 24 questions that the Court will hypothetically have to answer on pp 12-13: You also have to remember that these cases were decided on ideological lines. That means that all it takes to render these decisions effectively meaningless is a narrow interpretation. You also need to keep in mind that these two rulings together could easily turn out to be regulation-enabling with the fact that the Court presumed prohibitions in "sensitive places" to be Constitutional in Heller and affirmed that presumption in McDonald. It's reasonable to predict that a government could define a neighborhood with an abnormally high crime rate as a "sensitive place" and put prohibitions on firearms in place in those areas. Then you run into Equal Protection issues, but then you end up with more cases decided on ideological lines of what is a reasonable prohibition for a sensitive place. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Nordyke V. King 9th Circuit En Banc.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
