Posted on 02/04/2008 11:35:06 AM PST by ctdonath2
Today, attorneys challenging Washington, D.C’s 31-year-old gun prohibition laws filed their written arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at dcguncase.com ...
To have the full impact of the Second Amendment's protections restored to citizens in all 50 States. As it should be and was originally intended.
You know this. You don't like it and have fought against it for spurious reasons, but you know this.
I'm not sure WHY you want States to have the ability to "infringe" on RKBA, this in spite of Art 6 para 2's injunction against it, but you do.
California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Washington DC all TOOK that power absent legitimate authority. They freely infringe RKBA to their hearts content despite Art 6 para 2, the 2nd Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and USC Title 18 Sect 241/242.
They do so using arguments JUST LIKE YOURS to pull an end run around protections for Individual Rights. This is why we label you "gun grabber", "troll", and many another well deserved pejoratives.
"War vets obviously had the right when in combat, but nobody thought they lost that right when incapacitated".
You're born with natural rights. Nobody gives them to you and nobody takes them away. As a society, we decide which of these rights we will protect and to what extent we will protect them. We codify this in a constitution.
If we choose not to protect some right to "A", it does not mean you no longer have the right to "A". You do. It's simply not protected. That's all it means. It certainly does NOT mean that "A" is no longer allowed or that "A" is illegal!
Granted, some federal, state, or local government MAY write a law regulating "A" or prohibiting "A", but that's a totally separate activity -- it's not automatic, as you imply.
There's nothing in the California state constitution that protects the right to keep and bear arms. Nada. Zilch. Yet millions of Californians own guns. They even have concealed carry!
COULD the California legislature write restrictive laws? Of course they can. Nothing stops them from doing so -- except the citizens of California.
So? The first amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make no law", yet they have.
That's why we're taking the case to the Courts. Last stop to try and get Congress to behave as they are sworn to do.
It's better than just taking to the streets with pitch forks and torches.
Not content with this major victory, most on this forum (you included?) wanted to take it before the U.S. Supreme Court for the ultimate showdown. To gain what, exactly?First, remember that it wasn't the gun-rights supporters in this forum who decided to seek cert. DC did that. For their own reasons. Our reasons for wishing it to happen weren't part of the decision process.
Keeping in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court likes to keep their decisions as narrow as possible, what are you expecting them to add to the DC Circuit Court's generous decision?Binding precedent in other than the 5th and the DC Circuits.
Of course not. Nor is the U.S. Supreme Court examining our posts on this thread to make their decision. I was merely interested in your opinion.
"Binding precedent in other than the 5th and the DC Circuits."
Interesting. You're hoping for that and that's what I fear. If the court rules a collective right or that handguns are not protected, that would also set a binding precedent in other than the 5th and the DC Circuits, would it not?
You would risk that in return for a ruling that, despite being a binding precedent, would have absolutely no effect elsewhere in the United States (except, maybe, Chicago) since handguns are not banned anywhere else. So much to lose and so little to gain.
If the court rules a collective right or that handguns are not protected, that would also set a binding precedent in other than the 5th and the DC Circuits, would it not?If SCOTUS should decide to make a clear ruling that it believed that the 2nd did not protect an individual right, it would very likely serve to motivate the large majority in this country that understand that it does precisely that to stand up and explain to SCOTUS that no, they aren't the final say as to what the Constitution means.
Here's what I suggest. You, personally, write a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts telling him in no uncertain terms what you intend to do -- the more details here the better -- if the U.S. Supreme Court does not rule an individual right. You be sure to add that YOU are the final say, not him.
(And emphasize the word "final" so he gets the double meaning. Hah hah!)
Be sure to include your home address because I'm sure that he, or someone in the Justice Department, will very much want to get back in touch with you.
If the Founders had your attitude, we’d still be a British colony.
True, but we'd be having a lot more fun.
You, personally, write a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts telling him in no uncertain terms what you intend to do -- the more details here the better -- if the U.S. Supreme Court does not rule an individual right.I'll be doing exactly what I've been doing for a good many years, now. There's no secret, and nothing illegal about it.
After our hypothetical ruling, there will be more people engaged in the cause.
Will there be violence? I'd be surprised. Because the minority that does not believe in an individual right are pusillanimous wimps who expect other people to do their fighting for them. And the majority has no need to fight, they can - and will - win at the ballot box.
That’s doubtful.
Judging from the recent Super Tuesday results, using the ballot box isn't a viable option either. We're into the full on "Bread and Circus'" mode of pre-collapse Rome.
That's useful if the U.S. Supreme Court bases their opinion on the number of people engaged in the cause. I don't think they do that. Nor would I want them to.
"And the majority has no need to fight, they can - and will - win at the ballot box."
Again, that's useful if we elect Supreme Court justices. We, however, don't.
Maybe you mean we'll elect conservative Presidents who will select conservative justices. Sure we will. Like John McCain.
Maybe you mean we'll elect conservative Presidents who will select conservative justices.What we'll see, in the first year, are proposals for a clarifying amendment to the Constitution. If that doesn't pass both Houses in that session - which is unlikely - we'll see calls for a Constitutional Convention. Where things go after that are unclear.
But have no doubt that a clear IRKBA amendment would have no trouble whatsoever being ratified. More than 70% of the voting population believes that we already have an IRKBA amendment. More than 40 states have IRKBA provisions in their state constitutions - the last to pass was Wisconsin, back in 1998, which passed in a public referendum with 74% of the vote.
We're talking about the difference between a gun-rights movement with five million activists and a gun-rights movement with fifty million activists.
I won't pretend to claim that correcting a SCOTUS mistake by passing a new 2nd amendment with clarified language would advance any of the rest of the conservative agenda - but I will guarantee that a declaration by the federal government that the Bill of Rights can be "interpreted" into a non-entity on the single most important guarantee within it, will not stand.
Wasn't that Bush's battle cry when he signed McCain-Feingold?
What would change? Nothing! Actually, it might hurry up the six states that have no RKBA in their state constitutions to get one.
Here's the thing. I don't want the federal government protecting the IRKBA. Write the amendment however you want, I still don't like the idea.
The reason being that the U.S. Supreme Court will then get to interpret it and apply it to all the states. Imagine a future liberal court defining "arms". Think handguns would survive? Perhaps they'll define "keep" as keep in a state armory or "bear" as to exclude concealed carry.
You scoff! Did you also scoff at nude dancing and flag burning as protected speech (but not advocacy ads 90 days before an election). What about Kelo? Abortion and sodomy found in a penumbra of an emanation? "Under God" or a Nativity Scene is establishing a religion? No-knock search warrants?
Oh, the U.S. Supreme Court is certainly capable. And if they interpret an amendment on guns, then it applies to every state in the Union.
To extend the ruling beyond the DC circuit. Most of us don't live in DC.
If the Supreme Court agrees with the DC circuit, then that strict scrutiny test must be applied to, at a minimum, all federal laws which infringe upon the right, that is all federal gun control laws. If they agree that it's fundamental right, then that probably extends the protection against infringement to the states under the current "rules" of application of the 14th amendment. Keeping in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court likes to keep their decisions as narrow as possible, what are you expecting them to add to the DC Circuit Court's generous decision?
Not expecting them to add anything, just extend the precedent to all the districts, not just DC.
I’m assuming you agree with me that the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with sport shooting or hunting which was the thrust of my argument.
But I enjoyed the elboration you provided. And it is so so so impolitic these days to point out that the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment very well may be to defend oneself from a dictator in D.C. in the form of our Federal government. Its just not something you can say in polite Georgetown society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.