Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling: Good/Bad? Constitutional or not?

[GunnyFreedom]

Ya, let's give it teeth so we can trust monopoly courts to dole out justice to members of the government club. What a brilliant solution. I have a couple thousand lawsuits I need to go file immediately since justice is so plentiful in the justice system.

P.S. still rooting for ya!

well, first of all we'd have to reform the courts such that the public has the power to bring charges and impeach justices to make that scenario work our correctly.

Secondly, I consider the Constitution --- if actually obeyed in totality --- to convey an dam near completely voluntaryist society.

 

[specsaregood]

Jason Lewis had a very reasonable discussion on the ruling yesterday. He came down against it. I was FOR it, but I think he convinced me that it is bad in the end.

"Today the Supreme Court of the United States made two key decisions. Jason discusses both of them, what they mean to you and we take calls from listeners."
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18...talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM

"Jason continues the conversation from the first hour and takes more calls from the listeners."
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18...talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM

"Jason tackles some other news of the day including Joe Biden putting his foot in his mouth again."
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18...talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM

Edit: 22minutes into hour 3 a caller pulls up a quote of Scalia saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of his ruling yesterday.

 

[specsaregood]

Book: "A matter of interpretation" (1997)
Scalia wrote:
"I view the 2nd amendment as a guarantee that the federal government would not interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Next passage:
"Of course, properly understood it is no limitation upon arms control by the states."

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

well, first of all we'd have to reform the courts such that the public has the power to bring charges and impeach justices to make that scenario work our correctly.

Secondly, I consider the Constitution --- if actually obeyed in totality --- to convey an dam near completely voluntaryist society.

Competition is the only way. If people can not vote every single day with their feet or wallets there is no check or balance for corruption.

 

[specsaregood]

Jason Lewis had a very reasonable discussion on the ruling yesterday. He came down against it. I was FOR it, but I think he convinced me that it is bad in the end.

And on the other side, here we have limbaugh saying the ruling was a good thing and the worst claim: "the constitution says what the government can't do." UGH!

 

[Southron]

Jason Lewis had a very reasonable discussion on the ruling yesterday. He came down against it. I was FOR it, but I think he convinced me that it is bad in the end.

You might want to keep that quiet here.

At best you will be called a statist

 

[Number19]

Furthermore,
If the Supreme court did not take this case, what recourse does an individual have against a state that IS stripping a natural right?

If tomorrow, Texas made a law stating no Latinos may run for state office, or speak of immigration reform, and it was upheld by the highest court (Appellate?) what actions should be taken by those citizens who's natural rights are being stolen?

Did not vote, waiting for response.

Move to another state.

 

[specsaregood]

You might want to keep that quiet here.

At best you will be called a statist

Well the point that came up from the caller I mentioned in an earlier post is that by getting this in as precedent, it gives them more power in the future to limit the 2nd amendment at the federal level and override any state laws that guarantee it. I suppose that was probably argued in this thread as well. The fact that scalia in his ruling completely contradicted his earlier on the record analysis in regards to the state's rights and the 2nd amendment, causes me to think this is correct. This is part of a longer term plan to limit our rights and it has now been federalized and all the people supporting this ruling have just been snookered.

 

[LibForestPaul]

Move to another state.

Thought of that. The commerce clause needs to be amended then to truly remove Federal manipulation.

 

[LibForestPaul]

What then is the role of the supreme court? It should not get involved with any state tyranny?

 

[nobody's_hero]

What then is the role of the supreme court? It should not get involved with any state tyranny?

The Supreme Court is supposed to bitch-slap the U.S. Congress or the President when they do something unconstitutional.

 

[FrankRep]

The Supreme Court is supposed to bitch-slap the U.S. Congress or the President when they do something unconstitutional.

That is the State's Job, not the Supreme Court.

 

[Number19]

Over the past 30 years as an active Libertarian, an argument that some used against our message of non-initiation of force, is that we would force our form of government on those who disagreed.

Perhaps this influenced my thinking, but I support, as the most reasonable form of government, a Republic of 50 Independent States, bound into a Union by a Federal Constitution, and with a Federal Government of Limited Powers strictly enumerated in the Constitution. Each State would be governed by its own State Constitution and it would be the Responsibility of the Citizens of each State to insure those Rights they valued and wished to live under. Freedom of Movement would be protected by the Federal Constitution.

Now, my personal Choice would be to live in a State with a Libertarian Constitution, but I would not deny those who wished to live under a more restrictive Law.