Gun Rights Case Could Turn On Civil War-Era Laws(CBS !)

cbsnews.com ^ | 1 October, 2009 | Declan McCullagh

[marktwain]

Hard to believe that CBSnews allows these facts on their blog site!

[Travis McGee]

BANG!

[GWMcClintock]

“...would they really want to risk a public outcry by ruling a well-documented right to self-defense is somehow less fundamental? “

It didn’t stop them from overriding private property rights, public opinion be d@mned!

[Leisler]

This is being brought, as was the DC gun case, by Libertarians. Not the NRA. Not the REpublicans.

What’s that tell you about your decades of support for the NRA and the GOP?

[umgud]

It is, instead, the very governmental power to protect residents that is critical to the concept of ordered liberty, since enforcing handgun control laws can make an enormous difference in curbing firearms violence."

Shouldn't they be required to provide evidence of this?

[Pistolshot]

The NRA v Chicago addresses the hand gun ban only.

McDonald v Chicago is much broader in scope. Not only in overturning the handgun ban, but also relief from selective incorporation.

This case has a better chance for 2nd Amendment Incorporation by the Supremes than the NRA v Chicago case.

[epow]

I’m not a lawyer, but after reading some of the Congressional debates when the 14th Amendment was being considered I am fully convinced that Congress intended it to limit the powers of the states and protect the people against infringement of those rights by state or local government. Some of the most flagrant infringements of the rights of former slaves in the southern states were state and local laws prohibiting blacks owning or possessing firearms, so it is unimaginable and incredible that Congress would not have intended the 14th to guarantee ALL of the constitutionally protected rights of the people against state and local infringement EXCEPT the right to keep and bear arms.

[Doogle]

......Marxists trying to reshape American into their liking...

[MrB]

Just a mild rebuke to your post. You assume that the left will have the same respect for the consistency of the rule of law that we do.

They do not. The end goal is all that matters, the rules and laws be damned.

Further, most on the left consider your respect for the rules and laws to be some alien concept, and you might as well be speaking Martian to them.

[MamaTexan]

"In urban environments, where handgun abuse is so rampant, the protection of a right to handguns simply because they are in common use undermines, rather than guarantees, ordered liberty. It is, instead, the very governmental power to protect residents that is critical to the concept of ordered liberty, since enforcing handgun control laws can make an enormous difference in curbing firearms violence."

Someone needs to inform the ignorant schmucks in Chicago of a very simple fact;

ANY government that cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect someone CANNOT have a legitimate authority to prevent someone from protecting themselves.

It's really not rocket science.

[Dead Corpse]

But the majority opinion never concluded that the Second Amendment applied to states; it didn't say what kind of laws beyond a flat ban are acceptable or unacceptable; it didn't even say what kind of standards lower courts should apply when evaluating anti-gun laws.

"Shall not be infringed."

There... Cleared that up quickly didn't we?

[Peet]

From the quoted article:

A 5-4 Supreme Court decision last year did say that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to own a handgun.

What a curiously misleading statement this is! Every word of it is true, yet it misleads.

Deception: Statement implies that there is a decision on "individual right" which was "5-4".

Truth: There was a 5-4 Supreme Court decision last year. Part of that overall decision was that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. That part of the decision was unanimous. Part of that overall decision was that D.C. law violated the Second Amendment. That part of the decision was was a 5-4 split.

This has been a lesson in how to deceive while telling the absolute truth...

Peet

[Dead Corpse]

Well said.

[Leisler]

The ‘living’ Constitution.

I.E. what it said and meant today, will be different tomorrow.

[Jaxter]

"What’s that tell you about your decades of support for the NRA and the GOP?"

I let my membership in the NRA lapse because of their continued support for John Murtha over equally pro-gun Republican candidates. My switch from Republican to independent will come next year when I renew my driver's license because there are so many RINO's in the party.

[MrB]

Have you ever tried to argue logically with a lib?

They don’t/can’t see the contradiction that you clearly stated, because “the rules” don’t matter. The end goals are all that matters.

[Joe Brower]

MrB wrote:
"You assume that the left will have the same respect for the consistency of the rule of law that we do.

They do not. The end goal is all that matters, the rules and laws be damned."

That's a Rog. And that is the greatest risk taken in approaching these issues through the judiciary. Remember: It's not tyranny when they do it.

[TXnMA]

"It is, instead, the very governmental power to protect residents that is critical to the concept of ordered liberty, since enforcing handgun control laws can make an enormous difference in curbing firearms violence."

True. In numerous documented cases, handgun control laws have had a negative effect on the curbing of firearms violence.

IOW, Gun control laws increase the incidence of firearms violence. And Chicago and DC are poster cases...

[Puppage]

But the majority opinion never concluded that the Second Amendment applied to states

Gimme a break!

So, does that mean that the First Amendment means that the state can freely "talk" about itself?

Ridiculous

[Blood of Tyrants]

"In urban environments, where handgun abuse is so rampant, the protection of a right to handguns simply because they are in common use undermines, rather than guarantees, ordered liberty. It is, instead, the very governmental power to protect residents that is critical to the concept of ordered liberty, since enforcing handgun control laws can make an enormous difference in curbing firearms violence."

Notice how they conveniently omit the fact that urban setting are where you are far more likely to need a gun and that the police are under absolutely no obligation to protect anyone.