• 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!

Market Share: The Key to Constitutionality

Still no quotes from Thomas and Scalia concerning the use of market share as a measure of Constitutionality eh? Perhaps a mention of market share from the Constitution itself? No? Why is that?

As a strategy, I marvel at the never ending attempts to present disjointed lies, and out of context snippets by liberal/Socialist Progressives. All I am left with is the understanding those responsible think they are easy to convince, and easy to manipulate.

The fact context and meaning can be easily checked, yet they still create this nonsense, does not illustrate they have much respect for their followers.
 
That's not me.

I'm all about the truth.

Then in future (if you actually mean what you just said) I'd suggest you do what I do whenever an article refers to a Court decision....find that decision and READ it completely.

Then compare it to any source decision(s) referenced; in this case the two recent SCOTUS decisions concerning the Second Amendment McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

The SCOTUS receives several thousand petitions for Writ of Certiorari (requests for case review) each year, and only has time to hear about 100 in oral arguments annually.

IMO the majority simply let this one pass due to time constraints, and probably won't address the issue again until after the upcoming Presidential elections. After the new President makes appointments to the next court which will determine what kind of majority will make "clarifying" decisions.
 
Last edited:
Then in future (if you actually mean what you just said) I'd suggest you do what I do whenever an article refers to a Court decision....find that decision and READ it completely.

Then compare it to any source decision(s) referenced; in this case the two recent SCOTUS decisions concerning the Second Amendment McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

The SCOTUS receives several thousand petitions for Writ of Certiorari (requests for case review) each year, and only has time to hear about 100 in oral arguments annually.

IMO the majority simply let this one pass due to time constraints, and probably won't address the issue again until after the upcoming Presidential elections. After the new President makes appointments to the next court which will determine what kind of majority will make "clarifying" decisions.

In your first posting you said: "It is an ARTICLE, which means the author is providing HIS (mis)-interpretation of the two Justices' response to the majority vote not to hear the case."

You've got an opinion and I have an opinion. Who's to say which is the truth and which isn't?
 
In your first posting you said: "It is an ARTICLE, which means the author is providing HIS (mis)-interpretation of the two Justices' response to the majority vote not to hear the case."

You've got an opinion and I have an opinion. Who's to say which is the truth and which isn't?

Well, that is a reasonable question. I don't wish to argue from "authority" but I will offer the fact that I am a trained lawyer. Part of that training is how to read the law and interpret court decisions at all levels. To understand the difference between binding and persuasive precedent, and what a denial of a writ of certiorari may or may not mean.

Now, the author of the article you cite is also an attorney, representing a gun control advocacy organization. Looking at the very first sentence of the second paragraph...

The Supreme Court’s “at least tacit approval” of strict rules for especially dangerous firearms was cheered by those who favor stronger gun regulation...

...demonstrates what the other legally trained members in this forum have been pointing out; that no "decision" was made. SCOTUS merely voted not to put the appeal on the docket for review. As I stated, there are several thousand requests each year and the court can hear about 100. Turning away a case does not mean approval or disapproval, merely that other cases have greater claim on their time.

While it is true that this action allows the law to remain on the books, this is no surety it is valid law. Many laws regarding gun control remained on the books right up until the Heller and McDonald decisions made them Un-constitutional. Hence my statement that this issue will probably be re-visited once the new Supreme Court membership has been established.

The position arguments provided by Scalia and Thomas on denial of the writ must be read within the context of the actual prior SCOTUS decisions I cited. They did not establish any "new rule" of interpretation, they merely pointed out that a sizeable number of citizens owned such weapons nationwide, which is one example of common use.

As for your opinion? Of course you are entitled to one, but it does not seem to be very well-informed. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
You didn't read the article, did you.

I did. It's an inaccurate, misleading--probably intentionally misleading--analysis of what Justice Thomas wrote, which I also read carefully. He criticized the Seventh Circuit's opinion on many other grounds the incompetent author of that piece of tripe never bothered to mention.

Do you have as much contempt for the First and Tenth Amendments as you seem to have for the Second? Most people with your political views do.
 
I know. Scalia and Thomas are two of them.

You have a right to an opinion, even if it is wrong. So far everything that you have espoused is fiction.
 
That's not me.

I'm all about the truth.

100916
 
... The position arguments provided by Scalia and Thomas on denial of the writ must be read within the context of the actual prior SCOTUS decisions I cited. They did not establish any "new rule" of interpretation, they merely pointed out that a sizeable number of citizens owned such weapons nationwide, which is one example of common use.

As for your opinion? Of course you are entitled to one, but it does not seem to be very well-informed.

Why do you suppose Scalia and Thomas would mention the number of citizens if they didn't intend it to mean something?
 
Why do you suppose Scalia and Thomas would mention the number of citizens if they didn't intend it to mean something?

You ask a question when the answer was provided in the post you quoted.

The position arguments provided by Scalia and Thomas on denial of the writ must be read within the context of the actual prior SCOTUS decisions I cited. They did not establish any "new rule" of interpretation, they merely pointed out that a sizeable number of citizens owned such weapons nationwide, which is one example of common use.

If you review Scalia's concurrence in McDonald v. Chicago you find:

n Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right (stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”). Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., we found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family.”

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Note that he did not specify any particular type of handgun, or differentiate between revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. Yet if we agree with the OP and your contention, it would imply that a State or local community can restrict hand-guns to a single particular type of handgun they feel is "safe" because this would comply with their reading of both Heller and McDonald.

Both he, and Thomas in his concurrence, go on to discuss the history of weapons commonly used for defense against government tyranny, which were not limited to hand-guns for home defense.

Scalia was merely pointing out in his recent dissent to the Majority's denial of a Writ of Certiorari that the type of guns being banned are in common enough use as to fall within the overall body of weapons considered protected by the Second Amendment. He was not trying to set up a "new rule" but rather explain the problems with local efforts to by-pass the SCOTUS decision by nit-picking it to death, something he and Thomas felt should be nipped in the bud.
 
... Scalia was merely pointing out in his recent dissent to the Majority's denial of a Writ of Certiorari that the type of guns being banned are in common enough use as to fall within the overall body of weapons considered protected by the Second Amendment. ...

Isn't that the same thing as saying market share makes a difference; that if enough users have assault guns they're OK?

That can't be the test of constitutionality. Had it been, the Eighteenth Amendment never would have been passed because quite a few Americans used alcohol.
 
Isn't that the same thing as saying market share makes a difference; that if enough users have assault guns they're OK?

That can't be the test of constitutionality. Had it been, the Eighteenth Amendment never would have been passed because quite a few Americans used alcohol.

No, it's not that same. It was not a DECISION, merely one of many arguments against nit-picking gun control laws. In order for it to be a DECISION the SCOTUS would have had to RULE and then list that as one of the operating methodologies which must be met to determine if a gun control law fell within the limits of their recent 2nd Amendment decisions.

I've already explained this to you in that prior response. Stop crying "the sky is falling" simply because you misunderstand a drop of rain.
 
Isn't that the same thing as saying market share makes a difference; that if enough users have assault guns they're OK?

That can't be the test of constitutionality. Had it been, the Eighteenth Amendment never would have been passed because quite a few Americans used alcohol.

The test of constitutionality is simple is it an arm or not? Why are you trying to bypass that obvious condition?
 
No, it's not that same. It was not a DECISION, merely one of many arguments against nit-picking gun control laws. In order for it to be a DECISION the SCOTUS would have had to RULE and then list that as one of the operating methodologies which must be met to determine if a gun control law fell within the limits of their recent 2nd Amendment decisions.

I've already explained this to you in that prior response. Stop crying "the sky is falling" simply because you misunderstand a drop of rain.

I don't think anyone said market share was a decision. The author was suggesting Scalia used it as a part of his decision-making process. As I recall, in Heller Scalia talked about the number of persons who kept handguns in their homes. In that decision he was using numbers to establish constitutionality. Right? In any case, it must have meant something or, presumably, he wouldn't have said it.
 
I don't think anyone said market share was a decision. The author was suggesting Scalia used it as a part of his decision-making process. As I recall, in Heller Scalia talked about the number of persons who kept handguns in their homes. In that decision he was using numbers to establish constitutionality. Right? In any case, it must have meant something or, presumably, he wouldn't have said it.

He did not make it "part of his decision-making process." I quoted you the concurring opinion he provided. I even gave you a link to check it yourself.
 
I don't think anyone said market share was a decision. The author was suggesting Scalia used it as a part of his decision-making process. As I recall, in Heller Scalia talked about the number of persons who kept handguns in their homes. In that decision he was using numbers to establish constitutionality. Right? In any case, it must have meant something or, presumably, he wouldn't have said it.

Wrong, there would be no basis for such a claim or condition. ie it is not in the constitution and cannot just be put there.
 
No, it's not that same. It was not a DECISION, merely one of many arguments against nit-picking gun control laws. ...

Why should it make any difference at all? Slavery was a common practice but it became it was made unconstitutional. Shouldn't gun possession be constitutional regardless of the number in use if Second Amendment says gun rights shall not be infringed?
 
He did not make it "part of his decision-making process." I quoted you the concurring opinion he provided. I even gave you a link to check it yourself.

I think he did so here's a quote for you. This is from Thomas' dissent in the denial of certiorari.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five millionAmericans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles.

Thomas is talking about guns in common use. To me, that says numbers matter. Heller wasn't about some noble constitutional principle. It was about keeping gun owners happy. When the potential for creating unhappiness among them arose, Thomas wanted to do something.
 
I think he did so here's a quote for you. This is from Thomas' dissent in the denial of certiorari.



Thomas is talking about guns in common use. To me, that says numbers matter. Heller wasn't about some noble constitutional principle. It was about keeping gun owners happy. When the potential for creating unhappiness among them arose, Thomas wanted to do something.

that is a silly and misguided ignorant interpretation of what Thomas said. The second amendment is not something that can be divided up so that some firearms are legal and some are not. The federal government has no proper power to ban some firearms and not others. Thomas is partially correct in that the majority did ignore the holding in Heller which of course was only partially correct to start with. The popular use is a cowardly caveat but it is the current case law and under the current case law, the ban is unconstitutional
 
He did not make it "part of his decision-making process." I quoted you the concurring opinion he provided. I even gave you a link to check it yourself.

You've mentioned DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago. Here's and interesting perspective of Supreme Court decisions based on Bush v Gore.

Bush v. Gore is a powerful reminder that Supreme Court decisions are a product of who is on the bench and their ideology and views. This, of course, is true in all areas of constitutional law, but rarely has it been as obvious – or as important – as in Bush v. Gore. This is an especially significant lesson as we enter the election year, 2016. The most important issue in the coming presidential election should be who will fill as many as four vacancies that are likely to occur on the Supreme Court in the next term or two of the presidency.

Thinking Back on Bush v. Gore | ACS

Opinions of the Court are worthless for anyone seeking a reasoned analysis of an issue. The justices will say just about anything to get the result they want.
 
You've mentioned DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago. Here's and interesting perspective of Supreme Court decisions based on Bush v Gore.



Opinions of the Court are worthless for anyone seeking a reasoned analysis of an issue. The justices will say just about anything to get the result they want.

Hence Roe v Wade.....
 
Scalia and Thomas introduced the concept. Isn't that a problem for you?

Not everyone takes their marching orders based on the political persuasions of their chosen heroes/masters. For example, I personally admire Milton Friedman for his contributions to economics and the fact that he was a major influence in leading me to become the Libertarian I am today, but I believe is dead wrong in his belief about government involvement in the monetary system.

Not everyone says, "Ooooh he Democrat so me must parrot everything he say and not analyze it for validity or consistency."
 
Back
Top Bottom