ping
But we do not measure the protection the Constitution affords a right by the values of our own times. If contemporary desuetude sufficed to read rights out of the Constitution, then there would be little benefit to a written statement of them. Some may disagree with the decision of the Founders to enshrine a given right in the Constitution. If so, then the people can amend the document. But such amendments are not for the courts to ordain.
Even a broken watch is right twice a day.
And the converse should be equally true...it is not to the courts to write in and create new rights by fiat.
The 14th amendment has done more harm than good to republican government. You can't have "states' rights" and incorporation. It's one or the other.
The Bill of Rights was not intended to put any limits on the states. They had/have their own constitutions, and many have their own Bill of Rights. The 10 amendments to the US Constitution were only supposed to apply to the national gubmint.
Not to burst anyone’s bubble, but this (like the “individual right” conferred by the 5th circuit in Emerson) is what lawyers call “dicta.”
When rulings say stuff that is not necessary to the result, that’s dicta, and it has no precedential force.
Precedent is based on WHAT courts do (affirm or deny, etc.) and WHY they do it (the parts of the opinion that explain the action). Not the other stuff they SAY.
Incorporation would have been necessary for a reversal, but not for this result. Therefore, the matter is still wide open.
That said, O’Scannlain is a true conservative (large Catholic family with kids who are lawyers and supporters of the Federalist Society). He would be a solid SCOTUS candidate, except that now he’s 72.
NOTE: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!
We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments. And courts covering other parts of the country — most immediately the Seventh Circuit, based in Chicago — will have their chance to make the same interpretation in due course.
Mayor Daley's head will explode.
'Da Mare' in 'Chucky Mode'
Every time the question of concealed carry is brought up the arguement has been put forth that ‘it stands to reason that allowing large numbers of people to carry guns will result in more gun crime.’ That arguement has been routinely defeated by subsequent data. In fact, allowing concealed carry usually results in a reduction of violent crime.
On page 4504 the court says “It is not difficult to see how 4,000 shoppers trading in modern firearms pose more danger than a crowd of history buffs in traditional garb playing with blank ammunition.”
Is this not a simple paraphrasing of the gun-banner’s lament from my first paragraph? The court has gone to great lengths to substantiate every step it has taken through the vast swamp of prior decisions. Yet it hangs the Nordykes out to dry on nothing better than opinion! This especially after admitting that “The parties agree that
nothing violent or illegal happened at those events.” (Page 4471.)
IANAL but it sure looks to my untrained eye as if the Nordykes have a basis for an appeal.
Bang
My God
That judge pretty much just told the federal government to go bugger off and not come back.
I’m speechless
Ping.
But we do not measure the protection the Constitution affords a right by the values of our own times. If contemporary desuetude sufficed to read rights out of or entitlements into the Constitution, then there would be little benefit to a written statement of them. Some may disagree with the decision of the Founders to enshrine a given right in the Constitution. If so, then the people can amend the document. But such amendments are not for the courts to ordain.
Such as the "right" to healthcare, the "right" to a minimum income, etc., etc.
And so many people here said the Heller Decision was a limited victory. That declaration of an “individual right” to RKBA was pivotal.
Either I am in the twilight zone, or the libs are eating themselves.
