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: 1210251" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p>The way that I read the plurality opinion (and I do admit that I am uneducated), the Court affirmed that their stance in Heller that such prohibitions that are presumed to be Constitutional are indeed Constitutional until proven otherwise.</p><p></p><p>Today's 7th Circuit ruling in United States v. Skoien cited both Heller and McDonald's stance on "longstanding prohibitions" in their majority opinion affirming the Constitutionality of a prohibition on possession of firearms by those convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence, although they did go on to say it that it would be "weird" to base their entire opinion on that considering that 922(g)(9) might not be considered by some to be "longstanding" until 2043. (It should be noted that they did stretch into First Amendment restriction analogies and restrictions on a sex offender's choice of residence to come to their final conclusion after making sure to opine that the only reason domestic violence is a misdemeanor is that the type of victim is more likely to come forward when it isn't considered a felony.)</p><p></p><p>You might also consider that the ruling in McDonald gave us a paradox of sorts. Yes, the majority did rule in favor of incorporation. But a majority also ruled against incorporation via Due Process. And a majority also ruled against incorporation via Privileges and Immunities. So to what extent, exactly, has the Second Amendment really been incorporated?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 1210251, member: 5151"] The way that I read the plurality opinion (and I do admit that I am uneducated), the Court affirmed that their stance in Heller that such prohibitions that are presumed to be Constitutional are indeed Constitutional until proven otherwise. Today's 7th Circuit ruling in United States v. Skoien cited both Heller and McDonald's stance on "longstanding prohibitions" in their majority opinion affirming the Constitutionality of a prohibition on possession of firearms by those convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence, although they did go on to say it that it would be "weird" to base their entire opinion on that considering that 922(g)(9) might not be considered by some to be "longstanding" until 2043. (It should be noted that they did stretch into First Amendment restriction analogies and restrictions on a sex offender's choice of residence to come to their final conclusion after making sure to opine that the only reason domestic violence is a misdemeanor is that the type of victim is more likely to come forward when it isn't considered a felony.) You might also consider that the ruling in McDonald gave us a paradox of sorts. Yes, the majority did rule in favor of incorporation. But a majority also ruled against incorporation via Due Process. And a majority also ruled against incorporation via Privileges and Immunities. So to what extent, exactly, has the Second Amendment really been incorporated? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Nordyke V. King 9th Circuit En Banc.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom