Do you think the SCotUS will take this case?
The court has already ruled that gun ownership is an unqailified individual right and that handguns cannot be banned -- the question here is if that ruling (which was against the Dicstrict of Columbia, a federal enclave) is also applicable against the states.Yes I do and I think they rule that owning firearms is a right. Just like free speech is.
I think they have to hear the case(or one like it). I think its imperative that an absolute clear line be drawn in the sand.
The court has already ruled that gun ownership is an unqailified individual right and that handguns cannot be banned -- the question here is if that ruling (which was against the Dicstrict of Columbia, a federal enclave) is also applicable against the states.
Given the incorporation of other parts of the bill of rights agianst action from the states, I cannot see how the court would NOT do so.
These are unrelated concepts.I'm not sure about a clear line. One can not scream fire in a theatre any more than one can expect to buy a car with out a VIN number nor buy a gun in a 7-11.
I'm not sure about a clear line. One can not scream fire in a theatre any more than one can expect to buy a car with out a VIN number nor buy a gun in a 7-11.
These are unrelated concepts.
The 2nd amendment equivelant to yelling fire in a theater would be firing a gun straight up into the air within the limits of a municipality.
Once you get into regulations, I can agree, defining "the line" there can get murky. I can support background checks, but I can't support you having to have the ammunition stored 100 ft away, with a trigger lock and the bolt assembly removed.
Sure -- thats why certain actions - yelling fire in a theater, firing a gun into the air while in a city - can be prohibited without running afoul of the protection of the bill of rights. These actions directly endanger others and so lie outside the right protected by the relevant amendments.Rights are limited be it free speech that harms others or vehicles that can harm others and these rights also includes the right to bear arms..
Sure -- the entire reason we have a 2nd amendment is that sometimes people need to kill other people.And you have to agree the purpose of firearms is to cause damage to others unlike a steak knife
They've already ruled on that....that was the substance of Heller.Yes I do and I think they will rule that owning firearms is a right. Just like free speech is.
Sure -- the entire reason we have a 2nd amendment is that sometimes people need to kill other people.
Boiled down, that's what it is.Well that is an awfully simplified view just because you want to have your guns.
They've already ruled on that....that was the substance of Heller.
With Heller already on the books, I can't see how the Supreme Court wouldn't overturn both Maloney (2nd Circuit) and National Rifle Association (9th Circuit), and affirm Nordyke, (7th Circuit).
Boiled down, that's what it is.
Am I wrong? If so, how?
You seemed to take exception to my statement.Goobieman you are missing my points they went right over your head. You are not wrong you are not right IMHO. IMHO there are shades of gray.
I have little issue with guns beng treated like Ohio treats cars:I also think every firearm should have a serial number, be registered and licensed. Not unlike a car is.
Well that is an awfully simplified view just because you want to have your guns. I find it a bit more complex like the right to free speech.
With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.
Actually, it's a concise and accurate view.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the people have the guns they need to hurt anyone seeking to be their tyrant.
FN 23 of Heller:
Alternatively (and more accurately), you could say that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people (read: states) could protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government.
Alternatively (and more accurately), you could say that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people (read: states) could protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government.
This would be an example of people sometimes needing to kill other people.Alternatively (and more accurately), you could say that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people (read: states) could protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government.
This would be an example of people sometimes needing to kill other people.
It is but one example of why we have the right to arms, and but one example if why it is protected by the Constitution.
Alternatively (and more accurately), you could say that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people (read: states) could protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?