Supreme Court: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

[Craig234]

Your right, we made that up. In fact, we went back in history, and when they passed the civil rights act we forced them to say that the 14th amendment would give freemen the right to bear arms even though none of them believed that it was an individual right.

This case is about the 14th amendment and whether or not the 14th includes the 2nd when it restricts the states ability to limit citizens rights. When they passed the 14th, the state militias had guns, and they were terrorizing black freemen who did not have guns. The members of congress argued that the 14th amendment would guarantee the right to bear arms. If they believed the 2nd amendment was a right of militias to bear arms, why did they feel the need to fix a state where militias were bearing arms, but the freemen were not?

Nice, finally something on the topic.

I don't agree the '14th includes the 2nd'.

Here's my view:

The 14th doesn't end the right of states to do things differently, within the constitution.

For example, let's say one state makes the speed limit on its state highways 55, and another 65. A citizen in the 55 state can't win in federal court saying the 14th gives him 'equal protection' to drive 65 if his fellow American in another state can. Same with any state-decided issue.

Now, the issue on this is what the second says - not the 14th.

If the 2nd amendment gives a right, then it gives it to all Americans, with the federal constitution overriding any state law, because that's how our system works. Not because the 14th says so - the 14th is irrelevant. If the 2nd *doesn't* give a right, then the right isn't created by the 14th. The logic there would be, "person in Chicago is entitled not to have any gun restriction, because person in Texas doesn't have a restriction, even though the 2nd amendment doesn't provide any protection." That's wrong. You can't give the guy in Chicago a federal right that the guy in Texas doesn't have as a federal right, but only as a state right.

The 14th just plays no role here in my opinion though I haven't read the opinions yet.

If anything, sometimes I suspect the radical right likes to play games with things like the 14th, as if they're punishing the left for freeing the slaves or something.

'You think you liberals can free the slaves, and ban segregation, eh? Well, how do you like your precious little 14th being used to say corporations are people? Ha!'

By the way, I don't know anyone who is saying people don't have the right to the protection of arms - at least rifles - in their home.

 

[waggy]

Only as a precursor to total revolution and the dissolution of the United States.

oh i suspect that would be the outcome..

I wouldn't be so sure.

39/50 states are shall-issue or unrestricted. Up from 8/50 less than 30 years ago. Guns aren't going anywhere, and gun control nuts are an ever-decreasing minority as their theories are repeatably proven wrong. For starters, where are the wild west gun fights that were predicted when shall-issue laws were adopted in multiple states?

What it comes down to IMHO is mentality. In general, gun control advocates are scared. Gun freedom advocates are not. At the end of the day, the representative and ever growing majority of responsible, confident, reasonable gun owners rule the field over the fear inspired by a few psychotics.

all it takes is one more on the SC to change the vote and its done.

I really hope I'm wrong.

 

[spidey07]

Craig, the bill of rights is not "given" rights. They were always ours. We are born with them.

This is a fundamental line between liberals and conservatives and you're on the wrong side of this one. Conservatives are firm believers in The Constitution. The government doesn't give us rights, the government is to protect them as they were always ours and cannot be taken away or infringed.

Also the due process and incorporation angle this took is actually the liberals wet dream as it allows them to declare all sorts of things not specifically in the constitution as "a fundamental right", they've ruled in favor of this path plenty of times before. By ruling against it in this instance they've shown their hypocrisy, some things in the BOR are good rights, others they don't agree with. And in some ways closed their favorite back door to sneak things in as "rights". You have 4 justices who don't believe the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right, that is scary. Apply it to freedom of speech/press, it's exactly the same.

 

[spidey07]

oh i suspect that would be the outcome..





all it takes is one more on the SC to change the vote and its done.

I really hope I'm wrong.

You're not. Always remember elections have consequences. Especially presidential ones specifically because of SC nominees.

What always fails me is why does this have to be a conservative/liberal issue? Liberals should be in full support of the liberty to keep and bear arms but for some reason they are against it? But I can take heart that even on this very highly left leaning board most everybody seems to agree with the ruling. And nationwide polls suggest 70-80% support.

 

[daishi5]

Nice, finally something on the topic.

I don't agree the '14th includes the 2nd'.

Here's my view:

The 14th doesn't end the right of states to do things differently, within the constitution.

For example, let's say one state makes the speed limit on its state highways 55, and another 65. A citizen in the 55 state can't win in federal court saying the 14th gives him 'equal protection' to drive 65 if his fellow American in another state can. Same with any state-decided issue.

Now, the issue on this is what the second says - not the 14th.

If the 2nd amendment gives a right, then it gives it to all Americans, with the federal constitution overriding any state law, because that's how our system works. Not because the 14th says so - the 14th is irrelevant. If the 2nd *doesn't* give a right, then the right isn't created by the 14th. The logic there would be, "person in Chicago is entitled not to have any gun restriction, because person in Texas doesn't have a restriction, even though the 2nd amendment doesn't provide any protection." That's wrong. You can't give the guy in Chicago a federal right that the guy in Texas doesn't have as a federal right, but only as a state right.

The 14th just plays no role here in my opinion though I haven't read the opinions yet.

If anything, sometimes I suspect the radical right likes to play games with things like the 14th, as if they're punishing the left for freeing the slaves or something.

'You think you liberals can free the slaves, and ban segregation, eh? Well, how do you like your precious little 14th being used to say corporations are people? Ha!'

By the way, I don't know anyone who is saying people don't have the right to the protection of arms - at least rifles - in their home.

I really really think you need to read the supreme court opinion. It was the opinion of the federal courts before the 14th amendment, that any state could restrict rights that were protected by the bill of rights. The bill of rights only prevented the Federal government from taking those rights away. Over time, rights have become "incorporated" through the 14th amendment, and those rights have become protected from the states as well as the federal government.

In this matter, I agree with Justice Thomas, that the original reading of the 14th amendment is wrong, and that the Supreme Court judgement in

​

United States [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]v. [/FONT][/FONT]Cruikshank is wrong and should not be used as precedent anymore.

If you do not read the opinion, the summary of the Cruikshank judgement is: An armed white militia attacked a group of black republican freedmen at a courthouse in colfax, several of the freedmen were armed, but they surrendered and were killed after their surrender. Several white militia members were charged with depriving the black freedmen of their rights. Namely the first amendment right to assemble, and the second amendment right to bear arms. (Take note, they were charged with denying their individual right to bear arms in a public place, not to own guns and keep them in their homes.) The Supreme Court threw out their conviction because the 14th amendment did not prevent the state militia from denying rights in the Bill of Rights to members of the State. In other words, the supreme court precedent is actually the opposite of what you believe it to be.

The Supreme Court over time, has only prevented states from denying rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights through the 14th amendment. If a right is stated in the Bill of Rights, but not incorporated through the 14th, the state you live in is free to take that right from you.

Your speed limit example is misguided, because the 14th states

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Speed limits are not understood to be a privilege or immunity of citizenship of the United States, nor is it depriving you of liberty without due process of law. (the last statement carries some very debated meaning, which is spelled out more in the opinion.)

And finally, if you read the dissent, 4 of the supreme court justices are saying exactly that, you don't have a right to own arms, and the states are free to prevent ownership if they feel like it.

 

[mizzou]

omg i can't wait to conceal carry through the state of illinois, what a piece of crap state chicago has made that place

 

[waggy]

omg i can't wait to conceal carry through the state of illinois, what a piece of crap state chicago has made that place

yes..it is.

 

[nick1985]

omg i can't wait to conceal carry through the state of illinois, what a piece of crap state chicago has made that place

Same here. My right to keep and bear arms is being infringed. Brady already said he wants to bring CCW to Illinois. I have donated to his campaign and I hope others who respect the 2nd amendment are as well.

 

[bfdd]

Same here. My right to keep and bear is being infringed. Brady already said he wants to bring CCW to Illinois. I have donated to his campaign and I hope others who respect the 2nd amendment are as well.

Would love to see someone try and push that through here in California.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Like so many in this thread... I can't believe the decision 5-4 "unless" the supreme purposely confers and decided to make the decision look close... although I don't why they'd bother doing that.

Anyhow... I guess we shouldn't be so surprised... more and more it seems the SC tries to interpret the constitution without reference to any supporting writing/statements from the signatories of the Constitution.

 

[irishScott]

You're not. Always remember elections have consequences. Especially presidential ones specifically because of SC nominees.

What always fails me is why does this have to be a conservative/liberal issue? Liberals should be in full support of the liberty to keep and bear arms but for some reason they are against it? But I can take heart that even on this very highly left leaning board most everybody seems to agree with the ruling. And nationwide polls suggest 70-80% support.

Demographics.

Liberal Upper Class: Generally a bunch of rich bastards who have never been exposed to guns or gun owners in their lives, and are afraid of what they don't understand.

Liberal Lower Class: Generally ignorant poor people who see so many illegal guns and violence that they assume everyone who owns a gun is a thug.

Liberal Middle Class: In between the two.



Conservative Upper Class: Generally a bunch of rich bastards who may have been exposed to guns via hunting or other methods at a young age. They may not be experts, but they're more enlightened than their counterparts.

Conservative Lower Class: Generally ignorant poor people who were also exposed to guns at a young age via something other than violence, and thus see guns as part of their way of life.

Conservative Middle Class: In between the two, but usually with more gun exposure than their counterparts.


This is just on guns for the record. On other issues Conservatives have their heads just as far up their asses as the liberals do on gun rights.

 

[irishScott]

oh i suspect that would be the outcome..





all it takes is one more on the SC to change the vote and its done.

I really hope I'm wrong.

And that's one of the reasons I'm so happy gun sales are up. The more gun owners there are, the more people who will want the right to hold onto and use their purchases. That and the more people who will expose non-gun owners to their way of life. Hard to stereotype gun owners as rednecks/psychos when several of your friends own one.

 

[Craig234]

Dashi5, I'd like for the rights in the constitution to apply to the states, pure and simple. Unfortunately, as you say, it's not that simple.

I incorrectly excluded the role of the 14th here. I don't like how it has the role it does, but it appears to.

Even Blackmun, who advocated all the federal rights apply to the state from the Bill of Rights (excluding the 9th and 10th, which are about federal versus state largely), used the 14th in arguing for this. However, practically the Bill of Rights have now been made binding on the states, as I'd said.

Here's a summary and list of the bill of rights the states have to follow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

 

[dmcowen674]

I'm amazed it was 5-4. rather scary.

sad part is guns ARE going to be banned in the next 50 years. i fucking guarantee it.

also didn't studentmayer say she would not vote against banning guns?

50 years? More like within 10 years.

It will help towards starting the next Revolution though.

 

[daishi5]

Dashi5, I'd like for the rights in the constitution to apply to the states, pure and simple. Unfortunately, as you say, it's not that simple.

I incorrectly excluded the role of the 14th here. I don't like how it has the role it does, but it appears to.

Even Blackmun, who advocated all the federal rights apply to the state from the Bill of Rights (excluding the 9th and 10th, which are about federal versus state largely), used the 14th in arguing for this. However, practically the Bill of Rights have now been made binding on the states, as I'd said.

Here's a summary and list of the bill of rights the states have to follow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

I am with you and Justice Thomas on this one, I believe the "priviledges and immunities" clause of the 14th has been wrongly interpreted. It should be fixed and taken to mean that no government in the US can deny any right enumerated in the bill of rights. This could have taken us closer to this, but it didn't. It just continued the patchwork of protected rights.

I don't think the Bill of Rights has been made binding on the states, only parts of it. The Bill of Rights states that for prosecution you need a unanimous jury, but many people are convicted without unanimous juries. It is a right in the Bill of Rights, that some states do not grant to their citizens.

 

[nick1985]

50 years? More like within 10 years.

It will help towards starting the next Revolution though.

As retarded as you can be, I'm glad you support 2nd amendment rights.

:thumbsup:

 

[waggy]

50 years? More like within 10 years.

It will help towards starting the next Revolution though.

hmm 10 years might be pushing it. i don't think we will have a death or retirement in the next 10 years. I also believe that the next president won't be Democrat after Obama.

wich is why i give it 50 years

 

[Amused]

hmm 10 years might be pushing it. i don't think we will have a death or retirement in the next 10 years. I also believe that the next president won't be Democrat after Obama.

wich is why i give it 50 years

I don't know. No incorporated right has ever been reversed. I think a ban would require a Constitutional Amendment at this point, and that has no chance of passing in this, or the next generation.

 

[exdeath]

hmm 10 years might be pushing it. i don't think we will have a death or retirement in the next 10 years. I also believe that the next president won't be Democrat after Obama.

wich is why i give it 50 years

This. Obama is the biggest socialist fvk up since FDR.

The only bad side is we are just going to get more of the same lazy backstabbing BS republicans because they know they have an easy election coming. You can see it now, every republican campaign ad is "vote for me because the other guy is bad, *example* *example* *example* !" or "vote for me just because I'm not D".

Boxer is scared, and even Pelosi won't touch guns, not that it will help her much at this point.

 

[JD50]

Craig

LOL

++

 

[FallenHero]

Justices change over time. They can simply reverse the decision later.

Historically speaking, the court really hates reversing decisions once they are made. In fact, it is very very rare because it creates turmoil in the system. Even if the case came up again, the court would probably refuse to hear it. They only reverse decisions if they have found to be made in error or have created a grave injustice that must be corrected (see separate but equal rulings). Other then that, only clarifications or slight modifications are made. Almost never a complete reversal, even if the current court disagrees with a previous ruling.

 

[spidey07]

Historically speaking, the court really hates reversing decisions once they are made. In fact, it is very very rare because it creates turmoil in the system. Even if the case came up again, the court would probably refuse to hear it. They only reverse decisions if they have found to be made in error or have created a grave injustice that must be corrected (see separate but equal rulings). Other then that, only clarifications or slight modifications are made. Almost never a complete reversal, even if the current court disagrees with a previous ruling.

True. And that's why this ruling is so huge. The 2nd amendment is now a fundamental right. Nothing about militia, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.

The court saying/ruling that it is for self defense opens up all kinds of challenges to states that don't allow concealed or open carry. You can easily make the argument that a state can't prevent one from carrying arms for self defense because to do so would infringe on a fundamental right.

 

[nick1985]

True. And that's why this ruling is so huge. The 2nd amendment is now a fundamental right. Nothing about militia, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.

The court saying/ruling that it is for self defense opens up all kinds of challenges to states that don't allow concealed or open carry. You can easily make the argument that a state can't prevent one from carrying arms for self defense because to do so would infringe on a fundamental right.

I was thinking last night about what would happen if I sued my state, Illinois, today saying they are denying me my Constitutional right to bear arms by banning me from carrying.

I'm curious as to what would happen

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I don't think the Bill of Rights has been made binding on the states, only parts of it. The Bill of Rights states that for prosecution you need a unanimous jury, but many people are convicted without unanimous juries. It is a right in the Bill of Rights, that some states do not grant to their citizens.

Re: Bolded portion above

IIRC, I saw that in the court's opinion (the dissent) but I don't find it in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

Here's the 6th:

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Fern

 

[spidey07]

I was thinking last night about what would happen if I sued my state, Illinois, today saying they are denying me my Constitutional right to bear arms by banning me from carrying.

I'm curious as to what would happen

I'm sure it's in the works. The attorney seems to have a very specific game plan and a strategy. He's not going to for the big laws, just the little ones that can be easily defeated. But those cases will allow the big ones to be taken down on precedent.