• 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 declines challenges to gun laws

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
danarhea said:
Discussion?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, nowhere except the first half of the sentence.
 
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.
 
Sammy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

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*
 
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...
 
Deuce said:
Well, nowhere except the first half of the sentence.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since Heller, the Court has said no one can have a complete ban on a Constitutional Right- howsomever the Court has said several times Rights can be regulated. Prohibiting Open Carry, especially in Texas, doesn't prohibit a citizen from protecting themselves as concealed carry is pretty easy to obtain.

The phrase- "A well regulated Militia..." means different things to different people. What matters is what it means to the Supreme Court. :peace
 
Bob Blaylock said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do some people only make this argument for the Second Amendment? What about the freedom of and from religion--are the states exempt from protecting that? What about the right for all adult citizens to vote--do the states get to oppress that?

Protip: Those who are not too enthusiastic about gun rights might be more willing to give them a second chance if more gun enthusiasts would support ALL human rights, not just the rights they like.
 
MaggieD said:
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*
Click to expand...

Maybe there was something wrong technically with the case.
 
Phys251 said:
Why do some people only make this argument for the Second Amendment? What about the freedom of and from religion--are the states exempt from protecting that? What about the right for all adult citizens to vote--do the states get to oppress that?

Protip: Those who are not too enthusiastic about gun rights might be more willing to give them a second chance if more gun enthusiasts would support ALL human rights, not just the rights they like.
Click to expand...

Prove they don't.
 
American said:
Prove they don't.
Click to expand...
Anyone who is pro-2nd Amendment (in favor of the right to keep and bear arms) and pro-war on drugs (in opposition to the right to put what you want into your own body) is a perfect example.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Anyone who is pro-2nd Amendment (in favor of the right to keep and bear arms) and pro-war on drugs (in opposition to the right to put what you want into your own body) is a perfect example.
Click to expand...

An example is not a norm. He's making blanket statements about Pro-2A people.
 
Phys251 said:
Why do some people only make this argument for the Second Amendment? What about the freedom of and from religion--are the states exempt from protecting that? What about the right for all adult citizens to vote--do the states get to oppress that?

Protip: Those who are not too enthusiastic about gun rights might be more willing to give them a second chance if more gun enthusiasts would support ALL human rights, not just the rights they like.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Gaius46 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is your opinion. Do not try to pass it off as fact.
 
MaggieD said:
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*
Click to expand...

SCOTUS gets petitions for certiorari (a request to hear a case) for thousands of cases a year but can only do justice to 50-100 cases. There just isn't time for more so there has to be some winnowing process. They like to pick cases that bear on important Federal questions or in cases where different Federal courts have ruled differently on the same question (as in the case I mentioned). Or sometimes just because the justices find the question interesting.
 
Deuce said:
This is your opinion. Do not try to pass it off as fact.
Click to expand...

Sure it's my opinion. But it's entirely consistent with common English language usage and, more to the point, recent SC decisions.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
There is no enumerated Constitutional right to drug abuse.
Click to expand...
So what? There's no right to have children in there either. Here's a quick civics lesson for you: the Constitution doesn't spell out what rights the people have, it spells out what rights the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has (see the 9th and 10th Amendments). And the Federal government simply doesn't have the Constitutional authority to dictate what you can and cannot put into your own body. Why do you think they had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol? Because without it, the Federal government didn't have that authority. And they still don't.

So I repeat: people who are pro-2nd Amendment and pro-Drug War are inconsistent WRT rights of the People they do and do not support.
 
Binary_Digit said:
So what? There's no right to have children in there either. Here's a quick civics lesson for you: the Constitution doesn't spell out what rights the people have, it spells out what rights the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has (see the 9th and 10th Amendments). And the Federal government simply doesn't have the Constitutional authority to dictate what you can and cannot put into your own body. Why do you think they had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol? Because without it, the Federal government didn't have that authority. And they still don't.

So I repeat: people who are pro-2nd Amendment and pro-Drug War are inconsistent WRT rights of the People they do and do not support.
Click to expand...

Even IF you are correct, your comments would only apply to the FEDERAL government. All state governments have long since signed onto all the federal Pharmacy laws. The constitution does indeed grant states the power to make such law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom