Posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow
On Wednesday, June 3, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday's decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments
Good luck with getting Mojave to answer the individual or collective right question. I tried and he continues to dance. He’ll probably remind you (like he has all of us) how low-brow you are compared to his supreme intellect.
Correct. You hate federalism, not I.
With protections like those, who needs gun control laws?
State laws that violate the protections for our basic human Rights are exactly what the Courts are set up to rectify.
It's called "justice" and "freedom". Or are you against those as well?
I'm glad you finally admitted that.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
Yes, Bailiffs enjoy laughing at idiots that don't know the difference between a traffic ticket and a "capital or otherwise infamous crime". So that is your argument on the whole "enumerated grand jury right" -- that traffic tickets prove this right isn't being enforced on the states? Pretty lame.
I believe your opinion is somewhere lost in the desert. You actually support the Chicago rulings against guns and yet you call me a Obama supporter. That’s mighty trollish of you.
Yes, if employees of the state. Just as I am in favor of allowing my employer to control MY speech on the job.
I cannot swear at fellow workmates. I cannot tell customers to f@@@ off. Y’know, that sort of stuff.
Backwards. I support state protections, you want judicial activism instead.
Not applicable to states.
State protections like California's .50 cal ban?
Give it a rest. Nice going Ace.
"It's a fundamental, inalienable, pre-existing Right... Except in my State and I'm fine with that."
That the sheer lunacy of that double standard hypocrisy doesn't make your head explode is a minor miracle.
State laws could have protected those rights. But you don't want that.
I never said that. You did. I guess you like being all alone with your wacky opinions. Good thing that those on the right do not agree with you.
So let's just imagine your personal preferences into the Constitution. That's how the left does it.
The individual or collective right question is generally irrelevant to the question at hand. At issue is whether the words "shall not be infringed" means (as mojave suggests) "shall not be infringed by the federal government but may be abrogated as the state government sees fit" or whether it means "shall not be infringed" (as the period immediately following the word "infringed" indicates).
“The Seventh Circuit got it wrong. As the Supreme Court said in last year's landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment is an individual right that ‘belongs to all Americans'. Therefore, we are taking our case to the highest court in the land,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist.
An excerpt from their news release
CJ Marshall and the majority were arguing that they did not have jurisdiction over this case of a taking. Why? Probably because they knew it was a hot issue that could lead to dangerous times in the still young nation.
They were punting. That’s all. Overall, the Court’s history of incorporating some, but not all, of the Amendments is curious and illogical on it face.
Hopefully, the Roberts Court will take the appeal and rule in favor of the concept that right to keep and bear arms is a individual right everywhere, in every State. The fact that the 2nd Amendment actually specifies that it is a right of the people will help.
Don't be coy. You've been pushing for federal judges to decide such questions, instead of state laws.
And leave the interpretation of that right to the federal judiciary. So if the courts decide concealed carry isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment, Congress can ban it nationwide and void all state laws protecting carry.
I don’t doubt that the Court would still try to infringe around the edges, but if it decides that the 2nd is incorporated, then the concepts of Heller will bring us closer to original intent than if they don’t agree to incorporate. IMO.
The strange thing about Scalia’s opinion in Heller is that he seems to agree that the 2nd is an individual right to KEEP arms, but not so much to BEAR arms. He would allow much more infringement of the bearing than of the keeping.
The only State firearm law that doesn’t run afoul of the Second Amendment is Alaska’s.
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.