Dr. Paul - PLEASE stop the SCOTUS from shredding the 2nd amendment

[john_anderson_ii]

yeah, this proposed ban on handguns that supreme court is in the process of hearing right now is completely ****'ed up.


and yes, the language is appropriate. so don't get your panties in a bunch. this is a real problem people.

It's not a proposed ban. Handguns, hell, any guns for that matter have been banned in Washington, D.C. for the last 31 years. This case, ruled upon earlier by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that ban as unconstitutional. The D.C. lawmakers got worried that they would lose their grip on the citizens of D.C. and decided to press the issue up to the Supreme Court.

I believe the Supreme Court is going to uphold the 9th Circuit's decision, and assert once and for all that a handgun is a firearm, and the right to own one is an individual right guaranteed by the constitution. However, they are refusing to rule on the right to carry one, to use one for self defense, or if the state has the authority to ban certain types of weapons (i.e. "Assault" Weapons, Short barreled shotguns, etc.)

 

[akovacs]

I actually think we'd have a good shot at winning this ruling.

As much as I hate Bush, his two appointments actually aren't bad and have some libertarian leanings. Now add Thomas and Scalia, you have 4. I don't know enough about the others, but I don't think it'd be difficult to get another vote.

 

[Sematary]

I actually think we'd have a good shot at winning this ruling.

As much as I hate Bush, his two appointments actually aren't bad and have some libertarian leanings. Now add Thomas and Scalia, you have 4. I don't know enough about the others, but I don't think it'd be difficult to get another vote.

This is the same court that gave away those people's homes in New London, Ct.
I don't trust them and if they wanted to uphold the constitution - they wouldn't have taken the case.

 

[akovacs]

Sematary: I agree, but I think in this case they will rule the proper way. The 'conservative' appointments on the court are actually decent (All of them dissented from the Kelo decision).

 

[john_anderson_ii]

This is the same court that gave away those people's homes in New London, Ct.
I don't trust them and if they wanted to uphold the constitution - they wouldn't have taken the case.

I don't trust them either, however the Supreme Court nearly had to hear this case. It's the first of it's kind really. A State is the defendant, and an individual is the plaintiff. D.C. is being forced to defend it's gun control laws. The original case was Parker v. District of Columbia. not District of Columbia Vs. Parker. Also, when the case was heard by the D.C. Circuit, of three judges, one voiced dissent. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson voiced dissent over the ruling because she, somehow, doesn't believe the Bill of Rights applies to Citizien of D.C. because D.C. is not a state. The provision of strictly ruling on D.C.'s provisions of law will decide if the Bill of Rights applies to D.C., however, even she agreed that the 2nd Amendment asserts an individual right.

This is going to be interesting to say the least. It's kind of scary though for this reason and this reason only: If the ruling doesn't go in favor of gun owners, this ruling could be applied very liberally in several states. If it does go favorably for gun owners, it will have very little impact in states with hefty gun control like California.


BTW, IANAL, but I read what they write!

 

[FreeTraveler]

I hope someone from the campaign is paying attention because the SCOTUS is going to determine once and for all what the 2nd amendment *REALLY* means - as if it isn't self evident and I don't think their decision is going to be good for America. Once they take the guns, the dictatorship can begin. Please, Dr. Paul - introduce legislation to clarify and solidify the second amendment BEFORE the SCOTUS can destroy America.

+1000

 

[Grandson of Liberty]

In a perfect world, the court clerk would come out to the steps of the supreme court building and give everyone the following message: "Are you all nuts? It's the 2ND AMENDMENT!!! Leave us alone, we're off to buy some guns."

Personally, while their ultimate decision might be a good one, I don't like the fact that the Supreme Court gets to make it, because eventually, there will be a court that says, "that's not what the constitution means. everyone turn in your guns."

 

[john_anderson_ii]

In a perfect world, the court clerk would come out to the steps of the supreme court building and give everyone the following message: "Are you all nuts? It's the 2ND AMENDMENT!!! Leave us alone, we're off to buy some guns."

No kidding. I think Harvey, the mechanic down the street could interpret the 2nd Amendment and know what it means. The anti-gun crowd however sees only what they believe is written on the Bill of Rights, unfortunately this is far from reality.

Personally, while their ultimate decision might be a good one, I don't like the fact that the Supreme Court gets to make it

There are pros and cons. If the SCOTUS rules in this decision that the RKBA is an individual right, a handgun is a firearm, etc, than any law that appears to assume otherwise in any state could be challenged, and the state courts would be forced to yield to the Supreme Court. This would strike down a lot of legislation based on those things.

For instance, California would have to become a shall issue state. Currently, CA only issues a permit to own a firearm if you meet certain criteria. This would have to be changed so that you are issued a permit if you do not meet certain disqualifiers. (i.e. they would have to assume to you have the right to posses a firearm, unless otherwise disqualified). However, under this decision, they could just as easily make two separate permits. One that allows you to own a firearm in your home, and one that allows you to carry it on your person. Also, many "gun crime" felons in California convicted on mere possession of a firearm in their home without a permit would have grounds for a retrial.

The biggest con is the narrow scope of the Order. It could be construed in state court that this Ruling ONLY applies to D.C., since the D.C. code is what is in question, which could lead to another SCOTUS hearing down the road. This really depends on the actual text of the decision that will no doubt be cited in courts.

says, "that's not what the constitution means. everyone turn in your guns."

The more pro-gun decisions we put on the books of the SCOTUS, the harder it will be for an anti-gun ruling. Case history is often the biggest single legal basis for rulings. So, a pro-gun ruling going on the books of the SCOTUS will carry some weight in lesser courts. If the text of this decision affirms the RKBA as an individual right, the Brady crowd will have no choice but to either stretch the definition of "reasonable restrictions" further than they already have, or seek a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Grandson of Liberty]

No kidding. I think Harvey, the mechanic down the street could interpret the 2nd Amendment and know what it means. The anti-gun crowd however sees only what they believe is written on the Bill of Rights, unfortunately this is far from reality.



There are pros and cons. If the SCOTUS rules in this decision that the RKBA is an individual right, a handgun is a firearm, etc, than any law that appears to assume otherwise in any state could be challenged, and the state courts would be forced to yield to the Supreme Court. This would strike down a lot of legislation based on those things.

For instance, California would have to become a shall issue state. Currently, CA only issues a permit to own a firearm if you meet certain criteria. This would have to be changed so that you are issued a permit if you do not meet certain disqualifiers. (i.e. they would have to assume to you have the right to posses a firearm, unless otherwise disqualified). However, under this decision, they could just as easily make two separate permits. One that allows you to own a firearm in your home, and one that allows you to carry it on your person. Also, many "gun crime" felons in California convicted on mere possession of a firearm in their home without a permit would have grounds for a retrial.

The biggest con is the narrow scope of the Order. It could be construed in state court that this Ruling ONLY applies to D.C., since the D.C. code is what is in question, which could lead to another SCOTUS hearing down the road. This really depends on the actual text of the decision that will no doubt be cited in courts.



The more pro-gun decisions we put on the books of the SCOTUS, the harder it will be for an anti-gun ruling. Case history is often the biggest single legal basis for rulings. So, a pro-gun ruling going on the books of the SCOTUS will carry some weight in lesser courts. If the text of this decision affirms the RKBA as an individual right, the Brady crowd will have no choice but to either stretch the definition of "reasonable restrictions" further than they already have, or seek a Constitutional Amendment.

Very good insight. . .thank you.

 

[Severius]

I think it's ludicrous that people are trying to say that the 2nd Amendment only applies to Militias. The very foundation of our country is that rights are for the individual and not a group.