Posted on 06/04/2009 1:28:39 PM PDT by libstripper
WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association is asking the Supreme Court to strike down strict gun control laws in the Chicago area, setting the stage for another high court battle over Second Amendment protections for gun owners.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
This could get interesting. If this goes to the Supremes, after sotomeyer is confirmed? the vote would likely uphold the state law overturning federal law.
What then? One possibility is individual states could then legalize private ownership of items currently severely restricted by federal law, full auto weapons for example. If a state can enact more stringent regulations, it follows a state could also liberalize laws as well.
And carefully read Heller...the Definition of “arms” I regard as a ticking bomb “then, as now....”
FYI, there is no NEED for the Supremes to consider 2nd Amendment “Incorporation”! FACT: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!
While I believe that you are correct, go try to buy a gun in Chicago. You can’t do so “legally” (”legally” being according to Chicago law), and doing so otherwise will land you in jail. You can say what you know to be right until you are blue in the face, and it’ll do you no good.
We need to win in the courts and/or in the legislature.
How does that pertain to the gun laws already on the books? Would that negate that stipulation in the Constitution. There are more gun laws than there are abortion laws, and there is nothing in the Constitution saying you cannot infringe upon that.
SCOTUS should have settled the issue long ago.
” This could get interesting. If this goes to the Supremes, after sotomeyer is confirmed? the vote would likely uphold the state law overturning federal law.”
How do you figure that? Souter dissented in Heller. The five in the majority are still there: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy. Or am I mistaken?
agreed.
NO. It just means that we are NOT living UNDER the Constitution!
That’s scary.
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.