• 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 Schedules Major Gun Rights Case

Cold Highway

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I would have thought the DC decision would apply here as well, I guess there must be major differences in the two cases?:confused:

I guess reading the article would have been helpful....

"Some background: the Second Amendment, of course, says that Americans' right to "keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed. Last year's decision in D.C. v. Heller applied that prohibition only to the federal government and federal enclaves like Washington, D.C., but left open the question of "incorporation" -- that is, what state laws were permissible or not. "
 
Last edited:
Jackboot said:
I would have thought the DC decision would apply here as well, I guess there must be major differences in the two cases?:confused:

I guess reading the article would have been helpful....

"Some background: the Second Amendment, of course, says that Americans' right to "keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed. Last year's decision in D.C. v. Heller applied that prohibition only to the federal government and federal enclaves like Washington, D.C., but left open the question of "incorporation" -- that is, what state laws were permissible or not. "
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court is notorious for taking baby steps. Job security, I guess ;)
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
The Supreme Court is notorious for taking baby steps. Job security, I guess ;)
Click to expand...

Well that is always a double edge sword, make too broad a decision, and risk setting a precedent we will never be able challenge in the future.:doh
 
Jackboot said:
Well that is always a double edge sword, make too broad a decision, and risk setting a precedent we will never be able challenge in the future.:doh
Click to expand...

Sometimes it's necessary; like Roe v Wade.
 
Jackboot said:
I am pro-choice, but I do have problems with Roe v Wade, but that is a thread all on its own.
Click to expand...

I'm pro-life. I have major problems with roe v wade. Start a thread. I'll show up. :mrgreen:
 
danarhea said:
You know, just when I think I find it hard to find some good things President Bush did while in office, a case like this comes up to show that Bush actually did at least a couple of things right, such as his appointments for Supreme Court Justices.
Click to expand...

I can guarentee you I'll like/tolerate his appointees better than obama's. :(
 
Incorporation is long overdue for the 2nd. Let's hope it goes that way.
 
Jackboot said:
I would have thought the DC decision would apply here as well, I guess there must be major differences in the two cases?:confused:
Click to expand...
The DC ruling directly applied the 2nd amendment to the D of C.

In the current case, the issue if is the 2nd amenment applies to the actions of a state, thru the 14th amendment. This is, as you mentioned, called 'incorporation'.

It is quite likely that the court will incorporate the 2nd against the states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom