Posted on 06/28/2017 8:58:03 AM PDT by rktman
The United States Supreme Court has declined to affirm the constitutional, Second Amendment rights which are guaranteed to citizens. They did so by rejecting an appeal from a lower court. That court had ruled that the state of California can impose severe restrictions on issuing permits to carry firearms.
In refusing to hear the appeal, the lower court ruling remains in effect.
Only two justices, Clarence Thomas and the newly seated Neil Gorsuch, dissented. Quoting them from Fox News, “The Court’s decision… reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right,” they wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Might be better to wait until Trump names another Justice.
Hopefully 2 between now and 2024. ;-)
Not the right time.
Not the right case.
Not the right court.
Exactly.
“Might be better to wait until Trump names another Justice.”
This is also known as strategery - a practice not unknown in the courts.
The only Amendment to the Constitution that states that a Right “shall not be infringed”. The only one.
MacDonald incorporated the 2nd under the 14th Amendment and thus applied it to the states.
At first I thought- Even Alito??? then it occurred to me that with Kennedy still on the Court there really is not a reliable majority for the 2AMd and it might have been judged better to put these things off until another time and a more reliable Court. Roberts is NOT reliable though with Trump as president he would not face the pressures and threats that he surely received from the obamanites. But one cannot any longer take his approach as necessarily Constitutional and not political.
MacDonald incorporated the 2nd under the 14th Amendment and thus applied it to the states.
Which is exactly what I said--liberal, anti-originalist "incorporation," exactly as the Left does with the First Amendment.
Conservatives who demand incorporation of the Second Amendment while screaming against it on all the others do us no credit. Personally, I prefer a morally sane America where states are free to mandate prayer, punish homosexuality, and even have local gun control over what we have now.
You seem to have forgotten about health care. ;-)
This means that state governments are held to the same standards as the Federal Government regarding certain constitutional rights. The Supreme Court could have used the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states.
However, in the Slaughter-House Cases 83 US 36, the Supreme Court held that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment placed no restriction on the police powers of the state and it was intended to apply only to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and not the privileges and immunities of citizens of the individual states.
This decision effectively put state laws beyond the review of the Supreme Court.
To circumvent this, the Supreme Court began a process called “selective incorporation” by gradually applying selected provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause.(See above reference for Amendments incorporated)
And Abortion...
Republican majority counties generally give out concealed carry permits, Democrat counties do not. This practice keeps mostly Democrats from carrying weapons, which is a good thing.
I understand your point; however, I am not just a citizen of a state, I am also a citizen of the United States. Just because I happen to cross a state border should not mean that I lose certain Constitutional protections.
It is also the deadly enemy of Constitutional originalism. I thought most conservatives actually opposed the Fourteenth Amendment, but maybe this was back in the day? Or maybe they oppose it everywhere else but support it on RKBA?
Incorporation has destroyed this country, thanks to groups like the ACLU. The Fourteenth Amendment was meant for one purpose and one purpose only: the citizenship of the Freedmen. Anything else is completely outside its legitimate purview.
Unfortunately the Fourteenth Amendment then led to a number of proposed Amendments which for the first time would have applied to the states rather than the federal government. One of these was the Fifteenth giving the Freedmen the right to vote (something that should have been done at the state level). The same thing applies to women's suffrage, prohibition, and the proposed amendment to forbid states from leasing land to Catholic schools.
Don't come 'round here waving Fourteenth Amendment "incorporation" in my face.
Or two.
That, and the fact that Hawaii and Kommiefornia are the only two states in the Ninth District with such restrictive laws. Peruta II is another case coming along that might be stronger.
Hey, no offense meant. Your points are well taken.
I happen to live in a state that has some seriously unconstitutional gun laws on the books; on top of that there is no effective political opposition because the morons who vote here are 70% commie.
The entire Executive branch is composed of very leftist DemonRats; both houses of the legislature have super majorities of Rats; all urban areas (which comprise a large portion of the population) are run by commie-Rats.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules the legal roost, so the Rat-bastards can pass any unconstitutional laws they want without fear of said laws being struck down.
For 2nd Amendment advocates, this means that the ONLY recourse (other than moving the hell out of here) is the USSC. So, yes, I support the incorporation of the 2nd under the 14th.
Its one more bit of "ammo" to fight for what's left of freedom here.
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.