Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 62

Thread: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

  1. #1
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,756

    Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday declined to wade into the politically volatile issue of gun control by leaving intact three court rulings rejecting challenges to federal and state laws.

    The court's decision not to hear the cases represented a loss for gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association, which was behind two of the challenges.
    But there is a third case that has not reached the Supreme Court, and this is a case where the definitions of Conservative and Liberal might become a bit blurred, or even get turned on their heads. This is the case in which open carry is claimed as a Federal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, and would force states to accept that Federal right. This is a case where Conservatives are arguing for greater Federal power to enforce open carry, while Liberals are pushing a States Rights approach, in that they don't want open carry in their traditionally Liberal states, and want their state to have the power to deny open carry.

    Both the gun issue, and which political faction that supports the concept of Federalism versus States Rights, depending on the case, would make for an interesting discussion. Is it hypocrital for Conservatives to claim States rights, and then argue for Federalism in cases they care about? Is it hypocrital for Liberals to claim Federalism, and then argue for States Rights in cases they care about? And what really constitutes Liberalism or Conservatism, if the line between States rights and Federalism is constantly shifting within these political factions? These are some interesting concepts to think about.

    Discussion?

    Article is here.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #2
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    But there is a third case that has not reached the Supreme Court, and this is a case where the definitions of Conservative and Liberal might become a bit blurred, or even get turned on their heads. This is the case in which open carry is claimed as a Federal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, and would force states to accept that Federal right. This is a case where Conservatives are arguing for greater Federal power to enforce open carry, while Liberals are pushing a States Rights approach, in that they don't want open carry in their traditionally Liberal states, and want their state to have the power to deny open carry.

    Both the gun issue, and which political faction that supports the concept of Federalism versus States Rights, depending on the case, would make for an interesting discussion. Is it hypocrital for Conservatives to claim States rights, and then argue for Federalism in cases they care about? Is it hypocrital for Liberals to claim Federalism, and then argue for States Rights in cases they care about? And what really constitutes Liberalism or Conservatism, if the line between States rights and Federalism is constantly shifting within these political factions? These are some interesting concepts to think about.

    Discussion?

    Article is here.
    I do not see any basis for a “states' rights” argument here. There is no “states' right” to violate the Constitutional rights of the people.

    “States' rights” only apply to powers that the Constitution does not explicitly delegate to the federal government, nor prohibit to the states.

    Nowhere does the Constitution delegate any power to the federal government to infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms, and the Second Amendment explicit denies this “right” to all levels of government. This is a right that belongs to the people, and neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to interfere with this right.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  3. #3
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,837

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Discussion?
    Absolutely, but I'll need to break it down for myself.
    1. I'm glad it's the Roberts Court, and not the previous one.
    2. The Roberts Court is R-of-C, but I trust them, though I disagree at times.
    3. I can't walk away from my National Laws feelings.
    4. But, I'm not aware of 50 different state gun laws the NRA is suing of this type.
    5. My solution would be to make the Texas law National law.

    A. I'm for one law for concealed carry, one law for age, one law for registration, still undecided on OC.
    B. This is a very active Court, with difficult issues, and I put that on Congress.
    C. With this Congress, I trust the Court more.
    D. I agree that a case could be made that both sides are hypocrites.
    Physics is Phun

  4. #4
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,844

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Nowhere does the Constitution delegate any power to the federal government to infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms, and the Second Amendment explicit denies this “right” to all levels of government. This is a right that belongs to the people, and neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to interfere with this right.
    Well, nowhere except the first half of the sentence.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    If states can ban this they can ban a free press too I guess.

  6. #6
    User Sammy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    01-15-15 @ 01:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    106

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    I would trust someone stumbling around drunk before I would trust someone stumbling around with a gun. 21 seems fair to carry a firearm and Ill leave it at that.

  7. #7
    User Sammy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    01-15-15 @ 01:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    106

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Sammy View Post
    I would trust someone stumbling around drunk before I would trust someone stumbling around with a gun. 21 seems fair to carry a firearm and Ill leave it at that.
    Now that ive said this, someone stumbling around drunk and with a gun doesn't make me very comfortable either HAHA.

    Perhaps something like learner permits should be applied at 18? Competence of firearms and their consequences makes all the difference. Similar to driving.

  8. #8
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    But there is a third case that has not reached the Supreme Court, and this is a case where the definitions of Conservative and Liberal might become a bit blurred, or even get turned on their heads. This is the case in which open carry is claimed as a Federal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, and would force states to accept that Federal right. This is a case where Conservatives are arguing for greater Federal power to enforce open carry, while Liberals are pushing a States Rights approach, in that they don't want open carry in their traditionally Liberal states, and want their state to have the power to deny open carry.

    Both the gun issue, and which political faction that supports the concept of Federalism versus States Rights, depending on the case, would make for an interesting discussion. Is it hypocrital for Conservatives to claim States rights, and then argue for Federalism in cases they care about? Is it hypocrital for Liberals to claim Federalism, and then argue for States Rights in cases they care about? And what really constitutes Liberalism or Conservatism, if the line between States rights and Federalism is constantly shifting within these political factions? These are some interesting concepts to think about.

    Discussion?

    Article is here.
    It mystifies me that SCOTUS can refuse to hear cases. When they've wound their way up the ladder, they should ALL be heard with the exception of those issues that have been ruled on in, say, the last ten years. *shrug*

  9. #9
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    This seems very spineless to me. There is a clear misunderstanding about how to interpret the 2nd, and clearing up such misunderstandings has been the job of the SCOTUS for over a century now. It sure must be nice to simply refuse to do your job whenever it suits you. But maybe I'm missing something...

  10. #10
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,494

    Re: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Well, nowhere except the first half of the sentence.
    I assume you mean the "well regulated militia" clause. This is a common misconception. It is a justification for the right (and not the only one at that), not a limitation on the exercise of the right.

    I'm guessing if anything gets to the SC it'll be the recent 9th circuit decision in Peruta v City of San Diego.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •