Supreme Court cases could affect state laws (Second Amendment)

The New Haven Register (Conn.) ^ | September 27, 2009 | Ed Stannard

[neverdem]

If there were multimedia, then I missed the others.

This is the fourth edition of “Petitions to Watch” featuring cases up for consideration at the Justices’ opening conference of September 29. We’ll have one final post tomorrow; included in today’s post are the Second Amendment incorporation petitions out of the Second and Seventh Circuits. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. Links to previous editions are available in our archives on SCOTUSwiki.

[marstegreg]

Since when do they care about the Constitution?

[Las Vegas Ron]

It's the only amendment that specifically says it shall not be infringed

Silly me, I thought words had meaning

[savedbygrace]

Those who believe in the right to bear arms were encouraged when the Supreme Court issued its ruling last year

No, Those who believe in the right to KEEP arms were encouraged when the Supreme Court issued its ruling last year.

Those who believe in the right to also bear arms were somewhat discouraged because the decision stopped short of including the uninfringed right to BEAR arms.

[Parley Baer]

Naw, that is why the liberals say the Constitution is a “living document” so they can bend it to say what they want for any occasion that benefits them.

[MrB]

It’s part of their elitist worldview.
They believe that they, living now, have more information, and are able to decide better than those moldy old framers of the Constitution.

This is why you hear the “flintlock musket” argument.

[neverdem]

It's the only amendment that specifically says it shall not be infringed.

IMHO, the vast majority of those infringements will go the way of the poll tax. I can think of two most folks will agree with: violent felons and those deemed a threat to themselves or others.

[Madistan]

Right - as if a law professor, a State Supreme Court, or a Federal Supreme Court is going to tell millions of gun owners what the 2nd Amendment means.
I’ve read it, and it is as clear as water to me.
QED.

[Myrddin]

This is why you hear the “flintlock musket” argument.

Which is countered by observing that only the Gutenberg press would be protected under the 1st Amendment if the protection was limited to the technology available at the time of adoption. No TV, radio, satellite, telephone or any more modern printing process would be protected. That shuts them up pretty fast.

[Gay State Conservative]

Chapter 140: Section 131L. Weapons stored or kept by owner; inoperable by any person other than owner or lawfully authorized user; punishment

Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user

The above is still on the books in the Gay State.I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that this is *exactly* what the SCOTUS overruled in "Heller".

[rahbert]

also, the rest of the BoR clearly identify individuals as
the party whose rights are being confirmed. The govt does
not need its rights to be confirmed.

[Mr. Blonde]

How much different is that from:

“Shall make no law”

“Shall not be violated”

“The right...shall be preserved”

The amendments all have pretty high bars against infringement, but that hasn’t stopped the government from enacting certain limits on those rights, some more justifiable than others.

For the issue at hand, I will never understand why the SC didn’t incorporate the entire Bill of Rights at once, and make this issue moot after Heller. Hopefully they will incorporate it, although I imagine the “reasonable limitations” language will remain.

[devistate one four]

If the 2nd was in the constitution when a state signed on to the union, how the h3ll can they get out of the 2nd 230 years later??

[poetknowit]

“Those who turn their guns into plows shall pow for those who do not”
Thomas Jefferson

[poetknowit]

opps, ‘plow’

[j_guru]

I almost like P.O.W. better ;-)

[DTogo]

“As someone who fears guns myself ... the harm that can be done with guns is quite considerable,” said Elizabeth Marsh, law professor at Quinnipiac University. While the original intent of the framers of the Constitution may have been to ensure people could defend themselves against government control, the Second Amendment needs to be looked at in terms of how it fits with modern needs, she said. “With all constitutional questions, it’s all a question of how you interpret the Constitution, and the Constitution I believe is a living document that needs to change with the times,” she said.

Let's get rid of that silly free speech stuff too, huh Liz? Maybe your right to vote, get you back in the home and kitchen?

Yeah, didn't think you'd like that...

[Chances Are]

...and those deemed a threat to themselves or others.

Could that be interpreted by those in power, who are abusing that power as well as ourselves, as an exception designed to protect them from an angry populace?

Just wonderin'....

CA....

[LearsFool]

Right - as if a law professor, a State Supreme Court, or a Federal Supreme Court is going to tell millions of gun owners what the 2nd Amendment means.
I’ve read it, and it is as clear as water to me.
QED.

Exactly.

And for us to wait on the government to decide whether or not we have the right to be prepared to oppose that government would be the height of naivete. (It'd be like the colonists asking King George III for permission to fight the Revolutionary War!)

[The KG9 Kid]

The thing that immediately shoots down the ‘living document’ liberals is to agree with them.

The Constitution lays out exactly how to change it in Article V.