Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Gun lovers/ Gun haters
- Thread starter Stefka
- Start date
link, cliffnotes.
thx
thx
The main issue is whether the 2nd amendment is a personal right or a collective right. Heller sued DC over DC's ban on all handguns.
Here is a link where you can listen to the oral arguments:
http://www.c-span.org/
The Court hasnt made it's decision yet, but the arguments are interesting.
Here is a link where you can listen to the oral arguments:
http://www.c-span.org/
The Court hasnt made it's decision yet, but the arguments are interesting.
needtogetarmy
CEO of Project Mayhem
Stefka said:
I've been following it closely.
I support the 2nd Amendment. I also support reasonable checks and balances to ensure criminals do not have access to firearms. I do not own any firearms myself but I would be more than willing to purchase firearms (and use them) if the situation required it.
IMO:
(1) All of the justices will agree that the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms.
(2) The division will be on what type of controls will be appropriate. I think the majority will apply a modified version of the strict scrutiny test. The minority may opt for intermediate scrutiny or a rational basis.
the will skip the 2nd amendment issue as usual--never consider a C issue when there are other grounds--i also wonder if there is some weird ground to decide in favor of the ban based on DC's status--or lack of said.
were there any companion cases from NYC? Denver?
were there any companion cases from NYC? Denver?
Stefka said:
the same way dc does not get a vote in congress--dc is a special case---but then again i have not taken con law in 10 years
Well, as DC isn't a state, they won’t have to worry about whether the 2nd amendment should be incorporated.eddymerckx said:the same way dc does not get a vote in congress--dc is a special case---but then again i have not taken con law in 10 years
But they'll still have to decide if the 2nd amendment is an individual or collective right, and they'll still have to decide whether they should use a strict scrutiny test, an intermediate scrutiny test or a rational basis test when evaluating regulations on hand guns.
Lots of bor cases first get to SCOTUS when DC is a party. DC is always a good test case, to see where the current bench stands. After that, the states jump in.
needtogetarmy
CEO of Project Mayhem
Con law is really the only area I enjoy reading outside of the few areas I get involved in professionally. Especially freedom of speech on campus. Important stuff!
This will be an interesting decision.
This will be an interesting decision.
Stefka said:
the dc circuit is a good gauge but my money is still on some way to distinguish the district--i just cannot see a dec based on the 2nd amendment--commerce clause--anything but the 2nd
mountain muscle
New member
eddymerckx said:
Eddy, I think I found a way to keep you in the state...
http://cmmginc.secure-mall.com/shop/index.php?cat=33&shop=1&
i think i will take the HK/Benelli Top Folding M3 Super 90--with the conversion kit.mountain muscle said:
eddymerckx said:
Did you listen to the oral arguments?
SCOTUS was all up in the historical analysis.
Madison, Jefferson, the English Bill of Rights, Scottish highlanders - they were talking about fucking highlanders. (Can you imagine arguing before SCOTUS and having them ask you questions about English legislation that forbade Scottish highlanders from bearing arms? Do you think he saw that coming?)
I don’t think they're going to be able to escape the 2nd amendment this time.
mountain muscle
New member
eddymerckx said:i think i will take the HK/Benelli Top Folding M3 Super 90--with the conversion kit.
That is just a shotgun. You need a rifle and pistol as well.
Stefka said:
betcha--
BNG
Well-known member
I think the 2nd is pretty clear if not taken out of context and time period. States were intended to be sovereign, and have their own militias. A national army wasn't seen as a good thing, as these people had witnessed the tyranny of gov't first hand. They were all about personal rights being established to protect the people from the gov't.
M
Megalomaniac
Guest
This is a crazy debate for them to have imho. People who are against the 2nd amendment don't really understand what people that are for the 2nd amendment operate. I have many guns and if you ban them then I will no longer consider myself a citizen and I will be an enemy of the state. This is the point where anarchy will set in and those who didn't want guns no longer will have a country.
H
heatherrae
Guest
I have the admit talking about the highlanders would have freaked me right the f*ck out...lol.Stefka said:
For some reason, I'm more comfortable in front of appellate panels than I am arguing in front of a jury. The panels you can understand and you know that they get your arguments and what is germane to the issue. In front of a jury, you never know what sort of rocks are in their heads or what they are thinking about. They are taking notes on whether they like your suit or not and how they don't understand why you didn't use luminol like they saw on CSI last night, despite the fact that this is a contract case....LOL.
bigmann245
New member
BNG said:
exactly and those times are gone. there is no need for the 2nd amendment anymore. i used to have a gun till my son was getting way too curious and the locks i had on it made it useless if someone did break in. if the government is going to invade your home they are going to find a way to make it legal so the right to have guns in your home for that purpose is obsolete. you fire upon them your going to end up dead or in jail. look at virginia tech, he bought the guns legally and killed a bunch of people because of the second amendment.
M
Megalomaniac
Guest
bigmann245 said:
I usually agree with you but think you slipped on this one. Nowhere did the second admendment kill anyone. I burn weed all the time and it is illegal, I know that you would agree that laws don't stop those who have desire. This issue is about principal more than anything. When our government is playing such a role in our life that they can control us 100% of the time then it is time for that government to be overthrown/revised. If we continue to let the gov get stronger then we get weaker as a nation.
As for your son, I think you should just educate hm. At no point in my life did I ever consider messing with my father's weapons. Respect is an issue at that point, I respected my father.
