The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
425 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
High court looks at reach of Second Amendment
By MARK SHERMAN, AP
2 hours ago
Share No Thanks Must Read?Thank YouYes 15
Share |
• Email Story
• Discuss
• Print

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared willing Tuesday to say that the Constitution's right to possess guns limits state and local regulation of firearms. But the justices also suggested that some gun control measures might not be affected.
The court heard arguments in a case that challenges handgun bans in the Chicago area by asking the high court to extend to state and local jurisdictions the sweep of its 2008 decision striking down a gun ban in the federal enclave of Washington, D.C.
The biggest questions before the court seemed to be how, rather than whether, to issue such a ruling and whether some regulation of firearms could survive. On the latter point, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority opinion he wrote in the 2008 case "said as much."
The extent of gun rights are "still going to be subject to the political process," said Chief Justice John Roberts, who was in the majority in 2008.
At the very least, Tuesday's argument suggested that courts could be very busy in the years ahead determining precisely which gun laws are allowed under the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms," and which must be stricken.
James Feldman, a Washington-based lawyer representing Chicago, urged the court to reject the challenges to the gun laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill. Handguns have been banned in those two places for nearly 30 years.
The court has held that most of the rest of the Bill of Rights applies to state and local laws. But Feldman said the Second Amendment should be treated differently because guns are different. "Firearms are designed to injure and kill," he said.
But Feldman ran into difficulty with some of the five justices who formed the majority in 2008. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined Scalia's opinion two years ago, said it seemed to him that Feldman was arguing that the court got it wrong two years ago.
Kennedy said other constitutional provisions have been applied, or "incorporated," against the states without stripping them of the authority to impose reasonable regulations. "Why can't we do the same thing with firearms?" he asked.
Of the other two justices in the majority then, Justice Samuel Alito also appeared to agree that the Second Amendment should be extended to state and local laws and Justice Clarence Thomas said nothing, as is his custom during argument.
Tuesday's statements from the court also left little doubt that it would not break new ground in how it might apply the Second Amendment to states and cities.
As in earlier cases applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states, the justices suggested they use the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War, to ensure the rights of newly freed slaves.
The court has relied on that same clause — "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law" — in cases that established a woman's right to an abortion and knocked down state laws against interracial marriage and gay sex.
This is the approach the National Rifle Association favors.
For years, Scalia has complained about the use of the due process clause. But Tuesday he said, "As much as I think it's wrong, even I have acquiesced in it."
Alan Gura, the lawyer for the Chicago residents challenging the statute, urged the court to employ another part of the 14th amendment, forbidding a state to make or enforce any law "which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
They argue this clause was intended as a broad guarantee of the civil rights of the former slaves, but that a Supreme Court decision in 1873 effectively blocked its use.
Breathing new life into the "privileges or immunities" clause might allow for new arguments to shore up other rights, including abortion and property rights, liberal and conservative legal scholars have said.
But why use that approach, calling for overturning 140 years of law, Scalia said, "unless you're bucking for a place on some law school faculty?"
Gura assured the court he is not in search of a job.
A decision is expected by the end of June.
The case is McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
It looks as though the right to bear arms may get a boost with the coming verdict. But it also looks like it may take a long time to reach the final decision on how far reaching gun control can go. Hopefully, common sense will prevail!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
Essentially I have a problem with the supreme court dictating gun laws one way or the other.
This case should have been heard by the Illinois supreme court and the Chicago handgun ban shot down as it is a violation of the Illinois constitution.

As unpopular as it might be any individual state may ban any and all guns if properly amended in their constitutions.

The consitution of the United States tells the federal government what powers it has and what powers it may not have. That even means any pro gun findings by the supreme court are just as unconstitutional as anti gun rulings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,044 Posts
>What part of this doesnt the supreme court understand.


The milita part.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

would have been better just to have written


The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

WV Gino
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
Retired Donkey said:
In the second amendment 'The right to keep and bear arms" What part of this doesnt the supreme court understand.
The supreme court should not even be involved with hearing this case.
The second amendment is to keep the federal government from enacting gun laws encompassing all the states.
Again if Illinois wants to ban ALL guns they certainly are withen their rights if they amend their state constitution.

Whatever the government can give ie. Pro gun laws it can take it away ie. Enacting prohibitive gun laws.

The bigger worry should be why this case is even at the supreme court. Roberts should have declined the case and told the Illinois supreme court to figure it out.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
I doubt you would be saying that if it was PA who disallowed ownership of handguns. State constitutions may not supercede the US constitution and neither may state or local laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
John S said:
I doubt you would be saying that if it was PA who disallowed ownership of handguns. State constitutions may not supercede the US constitution and neither may state or local laws.
I will say this again the constitution keeps the federal government from passing laws such as banning guns. States are free to do what they want. Yes, i would submit that Pennsylvania has every right to ban guns. Would i like it? Absolutely not and would move to another state and take my guns with me.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
You can say it as many times as you want to, but you will still be wrong. The states cannot dilute rights given by the US constitution. If the 2nd amendment doesn't stand, neither will the first, or any other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
John S said:
You can say it as many times as you want to, but you will still be wrong. The states cannot dilute rights given by the US constitution. If the 2nd amendment doesn't stand, neither will the first, or any other.
The constitution was not written for the states it was written for what the federal government could and couldn't do on behalf of the union. Why would every state write their own constitutions then?
You, need to go back to civics class because you are not breaking the argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,683 Posts
The Supremacy Clause ,Article VI, Clause 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land". The text establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, mandating that state judges uphold them, even if state laws or constitutions conflict.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

There you go...Civics 102
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
Nice try but this pertains to treaties and states cannot usurp treaties made by the government.
Article 1 section 10 mentions what states cannot do. If states cannot make laws and restrictions on firearms then how do they make laws prohibiting any number of gun laws such as no guns in bars, banks etc.
Again the enumerated powers pertain to the federal government.
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/032-243a.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,683 Posts
Nice try, but it just doesnt pertain to treaties
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
It would be fair to say that using your argument any state law limiting gun ownership is unconstitutional. Therefore for example carrying firearms across state lines cannot be restricted because the states cannot write their own gun laws.
Were you not taught in school that the constitution restricts what powers the federal government has?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,591 Posts
It would be fair to say that using your argument any state law limiting gun ownership is unconstitutional.
At the rate the Supreme Court is going, it'll take them another 30 years to get to that one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,683 Posts
The constitution gives states the power to create and enforce laws. However, when said laws are challenged on constitutional grounds, the federal courts and then the Supreme Court examines to see if said laws are unconstitutional.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
DennyF said:
It would be fair to say that using your argument any state law limiting gun ownership is unconstitutional.
At the rate the Supreme Court is going, it'll take them another 30 years to get to that one.
That makes my point. Doesn't it make you nervous that the supreme court can determine what's constitutional in regards to the 2nd amendment.
What happens if obama gets to nominate two justices.
A law gets passed that stops the ability to conceal carry and that all firearms must be kept at home and the supreme court upholds this as consitutional since people can still be armed?
That's why the supreme court and federal government was to have limited powers. Most states have it as a consititutional right to bear arms anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
The Supremacy Clause ,Article VI, Clause 2 is a major problem for us. What if the President signs an International Treaty banning the sale of all firearms and ammo. It is a Federal treaty and then becomes the law of the land. No more guns! This will be happening very soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
This would be a case where the supreme court should nullify the treaty as the constitution does not give the govt the authority to trump the consitution via treaties.

This is also where a state being a soveriegn territory can tell the president to pound sound. States are required to abide by treaties but if said treaty violates the constitution I would advocate secession.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top