View Poll Results: See OP for 2-pat question

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • The court will hear the case (or one like it)

    11 50.00%
  • The court will NOT hear the case (or one like it)

    1 4.55%
  • The court will incorporate the 2nd against the states

    8 36.36%
  • The court will NOT incorporate the 2nd against the states

    4 18.18%
  • Other

    2 9.09%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 164

Thread: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

  1. #41
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,457

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
    SCOTUS has to hear the case. Chicago will win. They have a case by case account of 1000's of handgun and assault rifle deaths to back up the ban. They court may allow shotguns and rifles for sport but guns made for killing people I think they will draw the line. Get ready to them them over or do the time Chicago. A good law for a severe problem.
    My dear Inferno, you are in error in so many ways in this post it is difficult to know where to begin.

    Chicago already has draconian gun control, yet it has among the highest violent crime rates in the USA. Gun control doesn't work, dear. Criminals do not obey the law. They don't buy guns in gunstores, they buy them the same place they get their crack and meth.

    Lawful gun owners are not the problem. The myth of lawful gun owners "snapping" and killing someone in any significant percentage is just that, a myth. It happens very rarely.

    Criminals are the problem. We need criminal control, not gun control.

    Gun control increases crime. It's been shown over and over; when the law-abiding are disarmed, criminals (who get weapons anyway, illegally, on the black market) are made bolder because they have less fear that their victims will be armed. I've known lots of criminals... two things they fear are big aggressive dogs and citizens with guns (both related to defensive force). They don't fear words written on paper (laws). Many of them don't fear the cops or prison. They fear being shot dead in the act by an armed victim.


    Given the current court and the Heller decision, it seems probable that the court will rule against Chicago. I sincerely hope that it is so. I treasure the Second Amendment just as much as I do the First Amendment.

    Tell you what, you don't step on my rights, I won't step on yours. I'll trade you nation-wide gay marriage for a nationwide unrestricted right to keep and carry arms. (Oops, there's the Libertarian in me coming out again )


    G.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  2. #42
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
    SCOTUS has to hear the case.
    The City of Chicago will win.
    Not that I think you can, but please DO explain how/why the SCotUS will overturn its own very recent Heller decision, which ruled that a handgun ban in DC violates the Constitution.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 06-06-09 at 09:02 AM.

  3. #43
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I agree that it's an individual right, but it's an individual right as against the federal government, not the states.
    Only because it hasnt yet been incorporated.
    Why do you think that wont happen?

  4. #44
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Only because it hasnt yet been incorporated.
    Why do you think that wont happen?
    Honestly? Policy reasons. The right to be free of handgun bans doesn't carry the same cachet as the right to free speech or the right to practice religion.

    That being said, I have no idea how they will come out.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #45
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    08-12-16 @ 12:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Is Chicago preventing people from forming a militia and failing to regulate them?
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  6. #46
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,968

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I agree that it's an individual right, but it's an individual right as against the federal government, not the states.
    There's no logical way you can include any of the other "rights of the people" protected by the Bill of Rights among the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States as contemplated by the 14th Amendment and NOT include the "right of the people" protected by the 2nd Amendment. It would be a completely arbitrary exclusion.


    Are you arguing that the 2nd Amendment was applicable to the states even before the 14th Amendment? It's pretty well settled law that that's not the case.
    How do you get that from what I said?

    Besides, it's "pretty settled law" that none of the other rights in the Bill of Rights were applicable to the states before the 14th Amendment, so I don't know what this has to do with anything.
    2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
    2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
    2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.

  7. #47
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,968

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    Is Chicago preventing people from forming a militia and failing to regulate them?
    By preventing the keeping and bearing of arms, sure.
    2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
    2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
    2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.

  8. #48
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    There's no logical way you can include any of the other "rights of the people" protected by the Bill of Rights among the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States as contemplated by the 14th Amendment and NOT include the "right of the people" protected by the 2nd Amendment. It would be a completely arbitrary exclusion.
    I'm not arguing for that conclusion in that post, I'm pointing out what the law is. As it was drafted and as it is currently applied, it applies against the federal government only.

    How do you get that from what I said?
    You said:

    No. The Constitution says "the States" when it means "the States" and "the People" when it means "the People." There is no other provision of the Constitution where "the People" is taken to mean "the States." None. In fact, the Ninth Amendment differentiates between the two in the same sentence.
    Unless I'm misreading this, you're arguing that the 2nd Amendment is different from other amendments, because the fact that it uses "the people" means that it applies of its own force against the states and not just the federal government. I don't think that's the case, nor do I think anyone's even arguing that.

    Besides, it's "pretty settled law" that none of the other rights in the Bill of Rights were applicable to the states before the 14th Amendment, so I don't know what this has to do with anything.
    And none of them were, until the Court explicitly declared so. That's my point.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #49
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,968

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I'm not arguing for that conclusion in that post, I'm pointing out what the law is. As it was drafted and as it is currently applied, it applies against the federal government only.
    The same as any other provision of the Bill of Rights, sure. Until they were.



    Unless I'm misreading this, you're arguing that the 2nd Amendment is different from other amendments, because the fact that it uses "the people" means that it applies of its own force against the states and not just the federal government. I don't think that's the case, nor do I think anyone's even arguing that.
    You're misreading it. My argument was whether or not it's an individual right as opposed to a "state's" right.


    And none of them were, until the Court explicitly declared so. That's my point.
    Never said otherwise.

    In this vein, I'm only saying that as an individual right, if the question comes up (which I can't imagine it will), there's no logical argument for excluding it from incorporation when all the other "rights of the people" are.
    2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
    2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
    2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.

  10. #50
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    07-22-09 @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    While personally I don't believe that the Second Amendment applies to regular citizens being able to own guns, I think that the 2nd Amendment will be incorporated.

    The reason I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to regular citizens is this:
    Consider, for example, the Second Amendment, which reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Unique among the provisions of the Constitution, the Second Amendment comes with its own mini-preamble, setting forth its purpose to foster a "well regulated Militia." This purpose has little to do with individuals possessing weapons to be used against their neighbors.
    However, the Supreme Court has interpreted this Amendment differently. In Presser v. Illinois the Court ruled that the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals.
    "We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
    Although Presser v. Illinois and United States v. Cruikshank both affirmed that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the Federal government and not the states, I think that the current Supreme Court will affirm otherwise.
    The Court has determined that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause incorporates most of the Bill of Rights. Most of the amendments have already been incorporated including the 1st, 3rd, 4th, most of the 5th, and the 6th. The 2nd Amendment has also already been incorporated by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Personally, I think the Supreme Court will do the same.

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •