• 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!

US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun bans

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
The US Supreme Court is taking up the question on whether the Second Amendment forbids gun control. This is going to be a very interesting case, and if the Supremes rule according to the Constitution, you are going to see the overturning of gun laws in many states.

Cross your fingers, folks. And as big of a Bush basher as I have been, I will grant him this - His choices for Supreme Court justices were excellent.

If the court rules favorably against gun control, it WILL be Bush's fault, and I will be more than proud to say "Well done, Mr. President", for a change. :)

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

The US Supreme Court is taking up the question on whether the Second Amendment forbids gun control. This is going to be a very interesting case, and if the Supremes rule according to the Constitution, you are going to see the overturning of gun laws in many states.

Cross your fingers, folks. And as big of a Bush basher as I have been, I will grant him this - His choices for Supreme Court justices were excellent.

If the court rules favorably against gun control, it WILL be Bush's fault, and I will be more than proud to say "Well done, Mr. President", for a change. :)

Article is here.

This should be very interesting. I would like to think highly of Bush in at least this regard.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

How is it that the first and fourth amendment are taken so seriously at face value... by the liberals / politicans.


yet the second amendment continues to fall under scrutiny.. when it's so clearly worded?

And, didn't the states have to comply with the constitution when they joined the Union? Last I checked the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed was still part of the constitution?

blah.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

According to the link, the US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun bans, not whether or not the Second Amendment forbids gun control

From Heller, it is clear that it does -- hard to see how the court could rule otherwise
 
Last edited:
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

This is all it says:

WASHINGTON — US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun bans.



Which is what it says in many news outlets, so that's all there is at this point.

The actual legal questions to be decided are unclear so far. Maybe less than this, may be more.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

More on the story:

Supreme Court to take up Chicago gun ban | csmonitor.com

Washington - Fifteen months after declaring that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms, the US Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide an equally important issue – whether that constitutional protection applies not only in federal jurisdictions but in every city, county, and state in the nation.

The case is important not only because it will be a historic development in the interpretation of the Constitution, but also because it will establish basic ground rules for future gun control efforts.

An appeals court ruled in the Chicago case that the city's handgun ban did not violate the Constitution because the Supreme Court had not yet declared whether its decision in the Heller case established a fundamental right to guns applicable throughout the US.

Since Washington is a federal enclave, the Heller decision left open the question of whether the landmark ruling would also invalidate handgun and other weapons bans enacted by city governments such as Chicago.

The Chicago case hinges on an important feature of constitutional history. When first enacted, the Bill of Rights provided protection against encroachments on individual liberty by the national government. For example, the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. However, it said nothing about restrictions enacted by a state legislature.
Looks like incorporation is the issue.

Incorporation of the 2nd against state action would be a great thing.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

The question the Supreme Court has now agreed to answer is whether Second Amendment protections of gun rights also apply to state and local governments.

There. That's a somewhat broader question.

It is difficult to see how the Court, consistent with all precedent, could rule that it doesn't.

The challenge here is not that the ruling in Heller is wrong, but whether or not it applies only to Federal areas. There's no theory under which this could be the case. They could invent one, to be sure, but I find that unlikely.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

There. That's a somewhat broader question.

It is difficult to see how the Court, consistent with all precedent, could rule that it doesn't.

The challenge here is not that the ruling in Heller is wrong, but whether or not it applies only to Federal areas. There's no theory under which this could be the case. They could invent one, to be sure, but I find that unlikely.
Agree fully. Hard to see how this could NOT go that way, especially given the current memebers of the court.

Will be interested to read what the USDoJ files in its brief.

Does anyone have an argument -against- incorporation?
 
Last edited:
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

The federal gov't isn't a party, so there's no reason for DoJ to file a brief, except as an amicus brief.

Will have to explore this further:

In upholding the Chicago handgun ban, the appeals court in Chicago cited Supreme Court decisions dating from the late 1800s that the Second Amendment applied only to the national government.

Given the cases I suspect they cited, this is particularly weak.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

The federal gov't isn't a party, so there's no reason for DoJ to file a brief, except as an amicus brief.
That's what I mean.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

I don't see how the Bill of Rights is not applicable to the States. When the States signed on to the Republic, they accepted the Bill of Rights. Those rights have been specifically reserved by the People. It's like saying the federal government can't infringe on free speech, but if I want to say something I'd need the proper permit from the State government. It makes no sense.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

I don't see how the Bill of Rights is not applicable to the States. When the States signed on to the Republic, they accepted the Bill of Rights. Those rights have been specifically reserved by the People. It's like saying the federal government can't infringe on free speech, but if I want to say something I'd need the proper permit from the State government. It makes no sense.
Thats what the 14th amendment does -- officially applies the BoR to the actions of the states.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Based on the current members of the SCOTUS, I think they will strike down bans against handgun ownership, which is consistent with the bill of rights.

Strong regulation is necessary, especially in inner cities, but banning them violates our rights.

.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

The US Supreme Court is taking up the question on whether the Second Amendment forbids gun control. This is going to be a very interesting case, and if the Supremes rule according to the Constitution, you are going to see the overturning of gun laws in many states.

Cross your fingers, folks. And as big of a Bush basher as I have been, I will grant him this - His choices for Supreme Court justices were excellent.

If the court rules favorably against gun control, it WILL be Bush's fault, and I will be more than proud to say "Well done, Mr. President", for a change. :)

Article is here.

Hopefully if the SC rules according to the constitution then hopefully there will be another one challenging bans of other types of firearms.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Hopefully if the SC rules according to the constitution then hopefully there will be another one challenging bans of other types of firearms.
It may very well be that the ruling will cover that, making additional cases unnecessary. It depends on what is argued.

I believe, however, as has been optherwise noted, that the Heller decision isnt the issue, but the application of the 2nd to the states.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

if u haven't noticed, there hasn't been very many liberals in this thread. :lol:
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

if u haven't noticed, there hasn't been very many liberals in this thread. :lol:
I've noticed that the ranks of the fanatically anti-gun have thinned considerably, across the board.

Of course, now its "reasonable" or "common sense" restrictions, designed to facilitate gun "safety". Not that their arguments to that effect are any more sound...
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

I've noticed that the ranks of the fanatically anti-gun have thinned considerably, across the board.

Of course, now its "reasonable" or "common sense" restrictions, designed to facilitate gun "safety". Not that their arguments to that effect are any more sound...

I used to be one of them. I think uncontrolled arms isn't necessarily a good thing. Just because someone can afford their own nuclear silo does not mean they should get one. If it infringes upon public safety en mass, then it's not a weapon people should have.

But scaling down to the more practical level... I don't see anything wrong with bearing arms. I do think registration should be mandatory though, mostly for criminal investigation purposes.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Based on the current members of the SCOTUS, I think they will strike down bans against handgun ownership, which is consistent with the bill of rights.

Strong regulation is necessary, especially in inner cities, but banning them violates our rights.

.

you do realize that regulation doesn't work, right?
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

I've noticed that the ranks of the fanatically anti-gun have thinned considerably, across the board.

Of course, now its "reasonable" or "common sense" restrictions, designed to facilitate gun "safety". Not that their arguments to that effect are any more sound...

Though you do have to wonder how they'd react to the idea of gun safety education in the schools.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

I used to be one of them. I think uncontrolled arms isn't necessarily a good thing. Just because someone can afford their own nuclear silo does not mean they should get one. If it infringes upon public safety en mass, then it's not a weapon people should have.
Interesting that the only people that bring up nuclear weapons in a discussion about the 2nd amendment are those that look to increase regulations on guns - all the while oblivious to the face that the 2nd doesn't have anything to do with nukes, and so any and every restriction on nukes is meaningless when discussing guns.

I do think registration should be mandatory though, mostly for criminal investigation purposes.
Registration violates the constitution as it is a precondition to a right not inherent to that right - it is no more constitutional than forcing people to register their blogs with the government before they can express their opinions.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Interesting that the only people that bring up nuclear weapons in a discussion about the 2nd amendment are those that look to increase regulations on guns - all the while oblivious to the face that the 2nd doesn't have anything to do with nukes, and so any and every restriction on nukes is meaningless when discussing guns.


Registration violates the constitution as it is a precondition to a right not inherent to that right - it is no more constitutional than forcing people to register their blogs with the government before they can express their opinions.

Nevermind the fact that historically registration has led to confiscation..


Even here in this Country... when Cali and New York required registration of their firearms... everyone was like.. "oh sure, npnp."...

Then California and New York banned some weapons.. and went knocking on people's door's to get them.


Sounded like a good idea.. up until the state's jack booted thugs came knocking.
 
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

you do realize that regulation doesn't work, right?

Yes, it hasn't worked... But the alternative is to allow anyone to buy a handgun, and we can't let that happen either. I'm talking about firm requirements... background checks, no felony convictions and such. I'm not talking about restricting law abiding citizens from handgun ownership.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Nevermind the fact that historically registration has led to confiscation.
Understandng that 'compelling state interest' means 'something necessary for state to be able to do to allow for the function of society', the government has no compelling interest to know which of its citzens has which guns, just as it has no compelling interest to know which of its citizens has a blog.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Yes, it hasn't worked... But the alternative is to allow anyone to buy a handgun, and we can't let that happen either. I'm talking about firm requirements... background checks, no felony convictions and such. I'm not talking about restricting law abiding citizens from handgun ownership.

Registration is imposing restrictions on ownership.
 
Back
Top Bottom