• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban[W:190]

Joe Steel

Joe Steel

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
560
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This could be the beginning of the end for the gun cult.

The Supreme Court gave an apparent green light Monday to lawmakers who want to restrict the sale of guns such as the rapid-fire weapons that have been used in the recent wave of mass shootings from Paris to San Bernardino.

The justices by a 7-2 vote turned down a 2nd Amendment challenge to a local ordinance in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park which banned the sale or possession of semiautomatic guns that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition.


In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the high court, by refusing to consider a challenge to that law, was "relegating the 2nd Amendment to a second-class right."


The court's decision was not a formal ruling -- the justices simply decided not to consider an appeal by gun-rights advocates. But it strongly suggests the majority of the court does not see the 2nd Amendment as protecting a right to own or carry powerful weapons in public.

Supreme Court appears to give states, localities green light on gun controls - LA Times
Click to expand...
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

The Supreme Court made a mistake when it decided to disregard the well regulated militia condition of the 2nd Amendment in deciding to allow any Tom, Dick, or Harry to live among normal peaceful citizens while owning a lethal arsenal. It needs to reverse that original judgement and the problem of gun violence in American culture can be fixed.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Joe Steel said:
This could be the beginning of the end for the gun cult.
Click to expand...

Right...I'm sure the criminals will comply with this law on the way out to Highland Park for some target practice.

Funny how they are willing to cede power to the state/municipalities for this, yet they will not also give them power over other issues. [i.e. abortion, SSM, etc] A little consistency here would be nice.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Heinrich said:
The Supreme Court made a mistake when it decided to disregard the well regulated militia condition of the 2nd Amendment in deciding to allow any Tom, Dick, or Harry to live among normal peaceful citizens while owning a lethal arsenal. It needs to reverse that original judgement and the problem of gun violence in American culture can be fixed.
Click to expand...

The Court bought the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment. That was obvious in Scalia's opinion. He relied on a lot of the propaganda the NRA has been circulating for years. The NRA is the culprit responsible for the outrageous decision.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

WCH said:
Right...I'm sure the criminals will comply with this law on the way out to Highland Park for some target practice.

Funny how they are willing to cede power to the state/municipalities for this, yet they will not also give them power over other issues. [i.e. abortion, SSM, etc] A little consistency here would be nice.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is a Tenth Amendment issue.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

The people of Highland Park have exercised their power to control the things which affect them.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Heinrich said:
The Supreme Court made a mistake when it decided to disregard the well regulated militia condition of the 2nd Amendment in deciding to allow any Tom, Dick, or Harry to live among normal peaceful citizens while owning a lethal arsenal. It needs to reverse that original judgement and the problem of gun violence in American culture can be fixed.
Click to expand...

So, what is your rank in the militia?
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Joe Steel said:
This could be the beginning of the end for the gun cult.
Click to expand...

I believe the USSC simply decided not to take up the challenge ... they didn't make a ruling.
Ain't the same thing.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Let's look at the AWB concept in a slightly different way. J. Q. Citizen has two children of fine moral character and, as a family tradition. funds their first gun purchase upon graduation. Child #1, the eldest, now has a legally purchased AR15 yet child #2, the youngest, will graduate after the AWB law is in effect and is thus unable to emulate the act of child #1. Why are the 2A rights of those two fine citizen siblings different - for life? Is this really what was meant by equal protection of the law?
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Joe Steel said:
Maybe this is a Tenth Amendment issue.



The people of Highland Park have exercised their power to control the things which affect them.
Click to expand...

I agree with their ability to rule their own town as they see fit but, this upper class, 92% White, 12 sq. mile area full of Liberals is no threat to our God-given, 2nd amendment rights. If they want to [supposedly] live without protection, power to them.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Joe Steel said:
This could be the beginning of the end for the gun cult.
Click to expand...

And wouldn't you know it would be Illinois. A buddy just bought two 9 mils with clips of 12 and 16. I'll have to tell him.

I've never understood how SCOTUS can say, " Nah, we're not going to hear that."
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Joe Steel said:
This could be the beginning of the end for the gun cult.
Click to expand...


The SC has traditionally given legislators wide latitude with specific gun regulations. This is nothing new.

Thomas is right it does make the 2nd a 2nd class right, similar restrictions on speech would never fly. At least not yet. But that's the problem. The Bill of Rights is package deal. You either support all of it or you effectively support none of it. I wonder what you'll say when legislators come after your favorite rights.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

MaggieD said:
And wouldn't you know it would be Illinois. A buddy just bought two 9 mils with clips of 12 and 16. I'll have to tell him.

I've never understood how SCOTUS can say, " Nah, we're not going to hear that."
Click to expand...

Short answer Maggie is that they get asked to hear more cases than they realistically deal with. I don't remember the numbers but they get thousands of petitions to hear cases every year and only have enough time to hear a couple hundred (or numbers along those lines at any case).
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

I mentioned this in another thread on this subject, and amazingly few want to talk about it on this level.

Our problem here is the difference between legislative intentions for and judicial interpretations of the Heller decision with respect to the majority opinion where "support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

This case, Friedman v City of Highland Park, boils down to the determination by a municipality on what is a dangerous and unusual weapon. Highland Park argued in front of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals using his Heller decision language.

When the Supreme Court refused to hear the case they did in fact green light individual municipalities to do for themselves what Federal Congress has failed to address. I tend to agree with Judge Thomas in that the Supreme Court did not want to get into the business of deciding case by case what is a "dangerous and unusual weapon." But the consequence is local governments, even States, can now decide on their own what qualifies on that standard weapon to weapon, attachment to attachment, magazine size, shape, look, etc.

This is a real disaster for the 2nd Amendment, and it places the burden on 2nd Amendment supporters to challenge as many other municipalities that follow Highland Park's thinking as to flood the courts with so many challenges that the Supreme Court has no choice but to act. Probably in a manner that places the burden where it should be, on the Federal government to set guidelines on that "dangerous and unusual weapon" standard.

If someone does not address this then anything more than a sling shot will be a "dangerous and unusual weapon."
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Heinrich said:
The Supreme Court made a mistake when it decided to disregard the well regulated militia condition of the 2nd Amendment in deciding to allow any Tom, Dick, or Harry to live among normal peaceful citizens while owning a lethal arsenal. It needs to reverse that original judgement and the problem of gun violence in American culture can be fixed.
Click to expand...

To fix a problem there has to be causal relationship. It is totally idiotic to try to cure flu by putting up the price of beans.

So to validate your claim where is the causal relationship between the level of firearm ownership and crime? While you are at it why not explain how guns cause crime as well.

I would dearly like the answers to these two question which to date no gun control advocate can or has answered.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Heinrich said:
The Supreme Court made a mistake when it decided to disregard the well regulated militia condition of the 2nd Amendment in deciding to allow any Tom, Dick, or Harry to live among normal peaceful citizens while owning a lethal arsenal. It needs to reverse that original judgement and the problem of gun violence in American culture can be fixed.
Click to expand...

You don't read much history do you?
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

OrphanSlug said:
I mentioned this in another thread on this subject, and amazingly few want to talk about it on this level.

Our problem here is the difference between legislative intentions for and judicial interpretations of the Heller decision with respect to the majority opinion where "support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

This case, Friedman v City of Highland Park, boils down to the determination by a municipality on what is a dangerous and unusual weapon. Highland Park argued in front of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals using his Heller decision language.

When the Supreme Court refused to hear the case they did in fact green light individual municipalities to do for themselves what Federal Congress has failed to address. I tend to agree with Judge Thomas in that the Supreme Court did not want to get into the business of deciding case by case what is a "dangerous and unusual weapon." But the consequence is local governments, even States, can now decide on their own what qualifies on that standard weapon to weapon, attachment to attachment, magazine size, shape, look, etc.

This is a real disaster for the 2nd Amendment, and it places the burden on 2nd Amendment supporters to challenge as many other municipalities that follow Highland Park's thinking as to flood the courts with so many challenges that the Supreme Court has no choice but to act. Probably in a manner that places the burden where it should be, on the Federal government to set guidelines on that "dangerous and unusual weapon" standard.

If someone does not address this then anything more than a sling shot will be a "dangerous and unusual weapon."
Click to expand...

There may well be a small problem. Where does the 2nd allow for the restriction of what somebody thinks is dangerous or unusual?

If firearm owners, rights supporters and personal safety supporters want this kind of crap removed from the political agenda they had better learn to protest. The Supreme court would soon take notice if it had a 100,000 people banging on it's door making a noise every day filling the news about how blind and stupid they were.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

WCH said:
I agree with their ability to rule their own town as they see fit but, this upper class, 92% White, 12 sq. mile area full of Liberals is no threat to our God-given, 2nd amendment rights. If they want to [supposedly] live without protection, power to them.
Click to expand...

Where in the constitution is the power given to breech the 2nd. I'd like the exact words.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Joe Steel said:
Maybe this is a Tenth Amendment issue.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

The people of Highland Park have exercised their power to control the things which affect them.
Click to expand...

The people of Highland park do not have the power to change the constitution.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Crimefree said:
Where in the constitution is the power given to breech the 2nd. I'd like the exact words.
Click to expand...

I was speaking 'power' in general and was downplaying any threat they might have to the second. Obviously they are not the only entity with a ban on certain types of weapons.

The court needs to make a ruling.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Crimefree said:
There may well be a small problem. Where does the 2nd allow for the restriction of what somebody thinks is dangerous or unusual?

If firearm owners, rights supporters and personal safety supporters want this kind of crap removed from the political agenda they had better learn to protest. The Supreme court would soon take notice if it had a 100,000 people banging on it's door making a noise every day filling the news about how blind and stupid they were.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point... we can all read the 2nd Amendment and come to our own conclusions on what is "dangerous and unusual."

Our *problem* is the Heller decision while a more or less protection of 2nd Amendment rights also manufactured a problem. The majority opinion mentions "support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." That transcends the typical rhetoric on this subject from either side, as we have Supreme Court decision talking about inherent right to make restrictions. They just did not want to be the area of government that was forced to come up with those restrictions.

My point is the only way around the Supreme Court refusing this one case, is an immediate challenge of all municipalities and/or States that on their own decide what is "dangerous and unusual." In a way this handed the NRA a platform just as much as this handed the anti-2nd Amendment group a means to continue to chip away at the right. But a sister effort needs to be made of asking Congress to get off their asses and decide as a matter of law what "dangerous and unusual weapons" are. If Congress ever goes back to Democrat control, we may not like what that definition is.

So, our only hope is the 115th Congress staying Republican and the next President being Republican... that is not looking so good these days. Just saying...

That help?
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

Renae said:
You don't read much history do you?
Click to expand...

No he has not. The human race seems determined to repeat it despite all the warnings not to give political power to politicians who will abuse. The fact that more people have been killed in the last century than ALL THE WARS by their own governments escapes them. Never happen here we have a constitution. 262 million say that it utter stupidity. They also said never happen here.

Sadly nobody told these fools a constitution is only worth what the people will protect. A piece of paper cannot protect itself from government and only an idiot who has no value for their rights would think it can. We have to many idiots.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

bubbabgone said:
I believe the USSC simply decided not to take up the challenge ... they didn't make a ruling.
Ain't the same thing.
Click to expand...

You're right. Denial of certiorari is not a decision. It does, however, suggest the politics at work in the Court. Let's remember the members of the Court are nominated to the bench by a politician and are confirmed to it by 100 politicians. They never would have achieved their position if they had not been aware of political currents. Even though the justices don't have to state the reason for their votes politics very well may be at work here.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

ttwtt78640 said:
Let's look at the AWB concept in a slightly different way. J. Q. Citizen has two children of fine moral character and, as a family tradition. funds their first gun purchase upon graduation. Child #1, the eldest, now has a legally purchased AR15 yet child #2, the youngest, will graduate after the AWB law is in effect and is thus unable to emulate the act of child #1. Why are the 2A rights of those two fine citizen siblings different - for life? Is this really what was meant by equal protection of the law?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's called "grandfathering."
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

WCH said:
I agree with their ability to rule their own town as they see fit but, this upper class, 92% White, 12 sq. mile area full of Liberals is no threat to our God-given, 2nd amendment rights. If they want to [supposedly] live without protection, power to them.
Click to expand...

...or the risk associated with freely available military-style guns.
 
Re: Supreme Court Allows Gun Ban

MaggieD said:
And wouldn't you know it would be Illinois. A buddy just bought two 9 mils with clips of 12 and 16. I'll have to tell him.

I've never understood how SCOTUS can say, " Nah, we're not going to hear that."
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just the burden. They may have too much to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom