• 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!

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

See OP for 2-pat question


  • Total voters
    17

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Last edited:
Re: Will the SCoTUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

Do you think the SCotUS will take this case?

Yes I do and I think they will rule that owning firearms is a right. Just like free speech is.
 
Last edited:
I think they have to hear the case(or one like it). I think its imperative that an absolute clear line be drawn in the sand.
 
Re: Will the SCoTUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

Yes I do and I think they rule that owning firearms is a right. Just like free speech is.
The court has already ruled that gun ownership is an unqailified individual right and that handguns cannot be banned -- the question here is if that ruling (which was against the Dicstrict of Columbia, a federal enclave) is also applicable against the states.

Given the incorporation of other parts of the bill of rights agianst action from the states, I cannot see how the court would NOT do so.

There is conflict among the circuit courts, making it more likely that the SCotUS will hear it.
 
Last edited:
I think they have to hear the case(or one like it). I think its imperative that an absolute clear line be drawn in the sand.

I'm not sure about a clear line. One can not scream fire in a theatre any more than one can expect to buy a car with out a VIN number nor buy a gun in a 7-11.
 
Re: Will the SCoTUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

The court has already ruled that gun ownership is an unqailified individual right and that handguns cannot be banned -- the question here is if that ruling (which was against the Dicstrict of Columbia, a federal enclave) is also applicable against the states.

Given the incorporation of other parts of the bill of rights agianst action from the states, I cannot see how the court would NOT do so.

Neither can I.
 
I'm not sure about a clear line. One can not scream fire in a theatre any more than one can expect to buy a car with out a VIN number nor buy a gun in a 7-11.
These are unrelated concepts.
The 2nd amendment equivelant to yelling fire in a theater would be firing a gun straight up into the air within the limits of a municipality.
 
I'm not sure about a clear line. One can not scream fire in a theatre any more than one can expect to buy a car with out a VIN number nor buy a gun in a 7-11.

I'm talking more along the lines of the right to private firearm ownership. States and municipalities either can or cannot infringe upon your right to bear arms.

Once you get into regulations, I can agree, defining "the line" there can get murky. I can support background checks, but I can't support you having to have the ammunition stored 100 ft away, with a trigger lock and the bolt assembly removed.
 
These are unrelated concepts.
The 2nd amendment equivelant to yelling fire in a theater would be firing a gun straight up into the air within the limits of a municipality.

Rights are limited be it free speech that harms others or vehicles that can harm others and these rights also includes the right to bear arms. And you have to agree the purpose of firearms is to cause damage to others unlike a steak knife.
 
I would think that the SCotUS would have to take up this case. You can't allow States or cities to so blatantly destroy through force the ability of people to exercise their innate and inalienable rights. And I can't see them being able to uphold this crap that Chicago did. If they would somehow uphold it, they'd only be proving why it's a guaranteed right in the first place.
 
Once you get into regulations, I can agree, defining "the line" there can get murky. I can support background checks, but I can't support you having to have the ammunition stored 100 ft away, with a trigger lock and the bolt assembly removed.

I would not support that either.
 
Last edited:
Rights are limited be it free speech that harms others or vehicles that can harm others and these rights also includes the right to bear arms..
Sure -- thats why certain actions - yelling fire in a theater, firing a gun into the air while in a city - can be prohibited without running afoul of the protection of the bill of rights. These actions directly endanger others and so lie outside the right protected by the relevant amendments.

And you have to agree the purpose of firearms is to cause damage to others unlike a steak knife
Sure -- the entire reason we have a 2nd amendment is that sometimes people need to kill other people.
But, at this juncture, that's irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Re: Will the SCoTUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

Yes I do and I think they will rule that owning firearms is a right. Just like free speech is.
They've already ruled on that....that was the substance of Heller.

With Heller already on the books, I can't see how the Supreme Court wouldn't overturn both Maloney (2nd Circuit) and National Rifle Association (9th Circuit), and affirm Nordyke, (7th Circuit).
 
Sure -- the entire reason we have a 2nd amendment is that sometimes people need to kill other people.

Well that is an awfully simplified view just because you want to have your guns. I find it a bit more complex like the right to free speech.
 
Re: Will the SCoTUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

They've already ruled on that....that was the substance of Heller.

With Heller already on the books, I can't see how the Supreme Court wouldn't overturn both Maloney (2nd Circuit) and National Rifle Association (9th Circuit), and affirm Nordyke, (7th Circuit).

Great good I think this Chicago tribunal will be turned over.
 
Boiled down, that's what it is.
Am I wrong? If so, how?

Goobieman you are missing my points they went right over your head. You are not wrong you are not right IMHO. IMHO there are shades of gray.

For the record though I do think citizens of the USA have the right to own firearms. I also think every firearm should have a serial number, be registered and licensed. Not unlike a car is.
 
Goobieman you are missing my points they went right over your head. You are not wrong you are not right IMHO. IMHO there are shades of gray.
You seemed to take exception to my statement.
If you dont agree with it, tell me why.

I also think every firearm should have a serial number, be registered and licensed. Not unlike a car is.
I have little issue with guns beng treated like Ohio treats cars:

-You dont need a license to buy a car
-You dont need a license to own a car
-You dont need a license to keep/posess/store/transport a car on private property
-You dont need a license to operate a car on private propoerty
-You dont need a license to trasnport your car in public property
-You dont need to register a car that you buy
-You dont need to register a car that you own
-You dont need to register a car keep/posess/store/transport it on private property
-You dont need to register a car to operate it on private propoerty
-You dont need to register a car to transport it on public property.
-The ONLY time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-The ONLY time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

To treat guns like cars, change the word "car" to "gun" in all of the above.

:yt
 
Last edited:
Well that is an awfully simplified view just because you want to have your guns. I find it a bit more complex like the right to free speech.

Actually, it's a concise and accurate view.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the people have the guns they need to hurt anyone seeking to be their tyrant.
 
FN 23 of Heller:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

Still not sure what this FN is trying to say, but I'm reasonably sure that it's important.

Actually, it's a concise and accurate view.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the people have the guns they need to hurt anyone seeking to be their tyrant.

Alternatively (and more accurately), you could say that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people (read: states) could protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government.
 
FN 23 of Heller:

Alternatively (and more accurately), you could say that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people (read: states) could protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government.

Which I could see happening in my lifetime. :(
 
Alternatively (and more accurately), you could say that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people (read: states) could protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government.

No, less accurate, (that means more wrong, less correct, not as right, wronger, etc, if you need synonymous concepts)

If you've ever read the Second Amendment, you probably noticed that it says "right of the people", not "the right of the several states".

That means the people get the guns, not the states. The only reason people pretend the Second Amendment means "states" where it says "people" is that they can't tell the truth to themselves and continue supporting the positions they do.

Heller re-affirmed the correct notion that the Second Amendment grants gun ownership as an individual right, not some kind of state preserve to be doled out as the local yokels desire.
 
Last edited:
Alternatively (and more accurately), you could say that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people (read: states) could protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government.
This would be an example of people sometimes needing to kill other people.
It is but one example of why we have the right to arms, and but one example if why it is protected by the Constitution.
 
This would be an example of people sometimes needing to kill other people.
It is but one example of why we have the right to arms, and but one example if why it is protected by the Constitution.

The saying the pen is mighter than the sword comes to mind for me. By the printing press/mass media is where revolutions against tyranical governments happen not guns and bullets.
 
Alternatively (and more accurately), you could say that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people (read: states) could protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom