Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    28 Jun '10 16:15 / 1 edit
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100628/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_guns

    Lock and load, baby!

    Really. How anyone could interpret the "right to keep and bear arms" as not protecting the right to keep some level of firearm for self-defense in one's home is beyond me (unless one subscribes to that "well, they only meant it to members of the militia" nonsense).

    I'm as much for sensible gun control (assault weapons ban, requiring background checks for carry permits) as the next guy, but these cities went to far to simply ban all handguns, period, and they got the smackdown they needed.
  2. 28 Jun '10 16:34
    HA!
  3. 28 Jun '10 16:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100628/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_guns

    Lock and load, baby!

    Really. How anyone could interpret the "right to keep and bear arms" as not protecting the right to keep some level of firearm for self-defense in one's home is beyond me (unless one subscribes to that "well, they only meant it to members of the militia nonsense) ies went to far to simply ban all handguns, period, and they got the smackdown they needed.
    locally it's REALLY hard to get a concealed carry permit (in california it depend's on the sheriff's whim to grant such, i think. imagine trying to get one in San Francisco county). and i think open carry is illegal if the weapon is loaded. so gun advocates stage unloaded open carry events at Starbucks.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    28 Jun '10 20:32
    Bump

    It's guns, folks, guns!

    It's interesting stuff.

    Discuss.
  5. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    28 Jun '10 20:32
    Originally posted by sh76
    It's guns, folks, guns!
    Yawn!
  6. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    28 Jun '10 21:36
    Originally posted by sh76
    Bump

    It's guns, folks, guns!

    It's interesting stuff.

    Discuss.
    It's a great decision. Boring to discuss though. For people who already understood the obvious, it is no surprise that the keeping and bearing of arms is a constitutionally recognized individual right.

    It is pointless to discuss it with people who can't see the obvious, and they probably don't feel like talking about it either since their whole argument just went up in smoke.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Jun '10 23:38
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100628/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_guns

    Lock and load, baby!

    Really. How anyone could interpret the "right to keep and bear arms" as not protecting the right to keep some level of firearm for self-defense in one's home is beyond me (unless one subscribes to that "well, they only meant it to members of the militia" nonsense ...[text shortened]... es went to far to simply ban all handguns, period, and they got the smackdown they needed.
    Since this ruling was inevitable after Heller the Court for reasons of judicial economy should have just declared the right applied against the States in that decision (I've never liked "selective incorporation" anyway).

    That said, it would be nice if the Court could present some logical framework to let States know what regulations are likely to be upheld and which are not acceptable. Their present jurisprudence in this area is a lawyer employment act.
  8. 29 Jun '10 00:38
    OMG! i've rec'ed a no1m post!!!!
  9. 29 Jun '10 01:01
    looks more like they're playing King of the Hill

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334721392301704.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    * JUNE 29, 2010

    Five Gun Salute
    The High Court's four liberals are holding out to overturn Heller.

    Judicial liberals have been discovering the virtues of legal precedent now that conservatives are finally winning a few cases at the Supreme Court, but in yesterday's major gun rights case that all went out the window. The four liberal Justices rejected a 2008 landmark precedent as well as one of their own bedrock Constitutional principles.

    That's the most surprising news in yesterday's 5-4 decision in McDonald v. Chicago, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects the same Constitutional right in the states as it does in Washington, D.C.

    ....
  10. 29 Jun '10 01:05
    ...

    Elena Kagan may soon replace John Paul Stevens on the Court, and it's notable that Justice Stevens used his final opinion to issue a blistering attack on the Constitutional "orginalism" that informs some of today's conservative Justices. Mr. Scalia fired back in delightfully brutal fashion, and if you want to understand the Court's current philosophical divide, you could do worse than to read all of the opinions in McDonald.

    As for Ms. Kagan and gun rights, as a clerk to former Justice Thurgood Marshall, she declared herself "not sympathetic" to a Second Amendment case similar to the issue in Heller. As an aide in the Clinton White House, she advocated aggressive gun control regulations. Despite yesterday's welcome extension of gun rights to the states, the liberal effort to make the Second Amendment a second-rate right is a long way from over.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Jun '10 01:15
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    looks more like they're playing King of the Hill

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334721392301704.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    * JUNE 29, 2010

    Five Gun Salute
    The High Court's four liberals are holding out to overturn Heller.

    Judicial liberals have been discovering the virtues of legal precedent now that conservative ...[text shortened]... rotects the same Constitutional right in the states as it does in Washington, D.C.

    ....
    Please. 5-4 decisions from two years ago hardly have much "precedential" value. Heller itself overruled or misstated several long term precedents itself (correctly in my view but it's a bit absurd to cite precedent as a reason for retaining Heller).
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    29 Jun '10 13:07
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    looks more like they're playing King of the Hill

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334721392301704.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    * JUNE 29, 2010

    Five Gun Salute
    The High Court's four liberals are holding out to overturn Heller.

    Judicial liberals have been discovering the virtues of legal precedent now that conservative ...[text shortened]... rotects the same Constitutional right in the states as it does in Washington, D.C.

    ....
    A 2008 landmark precedent? As much as I support Heller and yesterday's decision, it was basically the same 4 that dissented then (with Sotomayor instead of Souter). I don't think it's fair to criticize someone for not changing their votes just because they were outvoted on substantially the same question 2 years ago.

    Precedent is one of those things that you point to if you like the precedent. There's a reason that SCOTUS is empowered to ignore its own precedent. It should do so if they believe that the previous decision was wrong.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Jun '10 18:07
    Originally posted by sh76
    A 2008 landmark precedent? As much as I support Heller and yesterday's decision, it was basically the same 4 that dissented then (with Sotomayor instead of Souter). I don't think it's fair to criticize someone for not changing their votes just because they were outvoted on substantially the same question 2 years ago.

    Precedent is one of those things that you ...[text shortened]... ore its own precedent. It should do so if they believe that the previous decision was wrong.
    I would emphasize that I support the result in Heller but not Scalia's reasoning. His nitpicking parsing of the phraseology used by Madison in writing the Second Amendment is unnecessary and unhistorical. The author himself would be astonished to see such heavy weight being laid on his choice of terminology in an Amendment he really didn't even think was necessary. It would have been enough to simply say that the right to bear arms was a necessary correlate to the pre-existing fundamental right to self-defense and that no matter how Madison had worded the Second Amendment, or even if it had been omitted from the Constitutional text altogether, that individuals retained that right and that the regulations in questions were violative of it.
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    29 Jun '10 18:24
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I would emphasize that I support the result in Heller but not Scalia's reasoning. His nitpicking parsing of the phraseology used by Madison in writing the Second Amendment is unnecessary and unhistorical. The author himself would be astonished to see such heavy weight being laid on his choice of terminology in an Amendment he really didn't even th ...[text shortened]... at individuals retained that right and that the regulations in questions were violative of it.
    You think the Supreme Court ought to be in the business of enforcing rights that are completely non-existent in the Constitution to the point that it should prevent states from enacting legislation to conform to SCOTUS' interpretation of natural or retained rights?
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Jun '10 18:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    You think the Supreme Court ought to be in the business of enforcing rights that are completely non-existent in the Constitution to the point that it should prevent states from enacting legislation to conform to SCOTUS' interpretation of natural or retained rights?
    Yes. The existence or non-existence of rights in the Constitution is irrelevant. The Framers never thought of the Constitution as creating or limiting fundamental rights and Madison tossed in the Ninth Amendment specifically to foreclose the argument that Scalia and presumably you are making. Of course, he made the argument that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and dangerous precisely because such an argument would be made if it was included.

    EDIT: i.e. The argument alluded to is: " Right A isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights therefore it does not exist".