Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court hears 3 gun cases
PHILLY.COM ^ | Friday, February 21, 2014, 12:31 PM | SCOTT BOMBOY

Posted on 02/21/2014 11:49:54 AM PST by Phillyred


The Supreme Court on Friday will vote behind closed doors to accept three Second Amendment cases that could further define how minors, and adults, are allowed to carry a gun outside of their own homes.

Two of the cases involve the National Rifle Association, and they are NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and NRA v. McCraw.

The question posed by the NRA in the first case is, “Whether a nationwide, class-based, categorical ban on meaningful access to the quintessential means to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense can be reconciled with the Second Amendment, the equal protection guarantee, and this Court’s precedents.”

The main questions posed by the NRA in the second case are 1) if the Second Amendment right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public, 2) if responsible 18-to-20-year-olds can bear arms, and 3) if 18-to-20-year-olds can bear arms in public.

As Constitution Daily contributor Lyle Denniston wrote for us two weeks ago, in an analysis of the case basics, the “two cases [are] testing whether the federal government and the states can restrict the rights of minors to possess a gun outside the home.” But the NRA also wants a Court ruling on if “the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense in case of confrontation includes the right to bear arms in public.”

Denniston said that one of the reasons the Supreme Court could take the cases “is that, in both, the federal appeals court came very close to creating an entirely new category of individuals ineligible to ‘bear’ arms, merely because of their age.”

In both of the decisions at issue, the appeals court said it was “likely” that they were not protected at all under the Second Amendment,

(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist

1 posted on 02/21/2014 11:49:54 AM PST by Phillyred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Phillyred

Gun cases can talk?...........no wonder there’s noise in my closet. I thought it was mice..................


2 posted on 02/21/2014 11:50:46 AM PST by Red Badger (LIberal is an oxymoron......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

They are Screaming “Fill Me!”


3 posted on 02/21/2014 11:53:43 AM PST by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C210N

No, they are screaming, “Take me out to the range!”.................


4 posted on 02/21/2014 11:55:08 AM PST by Red Badger (LIberal is an oxymoron......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred
...if the Second Amendment right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public

This argument is a stretch any for the liberals, what other constitutional rights end when you walk out your door, do you lose your right to free speech in public? Can you only practice your religion at home? Do reporters lose the right to a free press when they walk out their front door?

5 posted on 02/21/2014 11:59:35 AM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred

For anyone not suffering from cranio-rectal insertion issues gun rights cases are EASY to decide.

After all, one only needs to know the meanings of four simple words:

shall...

not...

be...

infringed...


6 posted on 02/21/2014 12:02:57 PM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th (and 17th))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred
I'm more interested in the Supremes taking up the 9th circuit decision in Peruta v. San Diego, which essentially mandated shall issue CCW permits, and the 3rd circuit decision in Drake v. Filko which upheld New Jersey's may issue (which means no issue in practice) laws.

If the Supremes rule in favor of the 9th, then the entire country would be shall issue, including states such as New Jersey, and cities such as New York City.

Then you would see Liberal heads explode.

7 posted on 02/21/2014 12:08:23 PM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred; BuckeyeTexan

Somewhat misleading headline. The cases haven’t been “heard” by SCOTUS. They are on a long list of cases where parties have asked the Court to accept the cases, which will be taken up in a conference of the justices. If four or more Justices vote to grant review, then the Court will hear the cases.


8 posted on 02/21/2014 12:10:53 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred
...the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense...

Am still trying to get my head around the wisdom or value of describing the pre-Constitution right to bear as limited to "self-defense".

9 posted on 02/21/2014 12:17:26 PM PST by frog in a pot (We are all "frogs in a pot" now. How and when will we real Americans jump out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

That explains the murmuring I hear from the waters in the lake I was fishing when the “canoe incident” happened.


10 posted on 02/21/2014 12:23:32 PM PST by SpinnerWebb (IN-SAPORIBVS-SICVT-PVLLVM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: apillar
what other constitutional rights end when you walk out your door

I think most cops are of the opinion the Fourth Amendment is pretty much restricted to that location, but doesn't always obtain even there...

11 posted on 02/21/2014 1:11:46 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
"be...",

There's the legal issue. "Is" is a form of the verb "to be." And high-ranking liberals self-admittedly do no know what the meaning of "is," is.

12 posted on 02/21/2014 1:14:21 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred; All
The Supreme Court on Friday will vote behind closed doors to accept three Second Amendment cases that could further define how minors, and adults, are allowed to carry a gun outside of their own homes.

Consider that the USA was a mostly rural country until 1920, citizens essentially living off of the land with no local police departments to call for help, especially since wire telephone technology had just been invented and probably wasn't in rural areas anyway. So the anti-gun rights question if people are allowed to carry a gun outside their homes is naïve at best imo.

Noting that the courts are now indicating that there is no constitutonal right to police protection, the Founding States had made the 2nd Amendment to clarify the following. Citizens are expected to exercise their natural right to self-defence and use arms to police themselves.

So if anti-2nd Amendment people argue that the amendment is obsolete, then they need to work their agenda within the framework of the Constitution as follows. They need to work with their state and federal representatives to propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states to "modernize" the 2nd Amendment. And if the Article V supermajority of states chooses to ratify the proposed amendment, very unlikely imo, then gun rights will be constitutionally limited and gun-control people will be heroes.

13 posted on 02/21/2014 1:15:43 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Terrible copy writing, which doesn't get better below the headline:

will vote behind closed doors to accept

Why vote at all if the vote is going to be to accept?

14 posted on 02/21/2014 1:16:12 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: apillar

“This argument is a stretch any for the liberals, what other constitutional rights end when you walk out your door, do you lose your right to free speech in public? Can you only practice your religion at home? Do reporters lose the right to a free press when they walk out their front door?”

Can a person be searched for no reason “...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...”

KYPD


15 posted on 02/21/2014 1:37:21 PM PST by petro45acp (It's a fabian thing.....how do you boil a frog? How's that water feelin right about now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred
I no longer trust anything from the Supreme Court. America's freedom is gone and these idiots are part of the problem.
16 posted on 02/21/2014 2:24:27 PM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”

~Senator (later Vice President) Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) Source:”Know Your Lawmakers,” Guns magazine, February 1960, p.6


17 posted on 02/21/2014 3:57:31 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
"For anyone not suffering from cranio-rectal insertion issues gun rights cases are EASY to decide. After all, one only needs to know the meanings of four simple words: shall... not... be... infringed..."

It's too bad that no one has asked the Supreme Court to rule on the meaning of "Shall Not Be Infringed". It's a simple statement that categorically defines the limits of Government when it comes to the Second Amendment. Simply stating, it means keep you damned hands off our guns.

18 posted on 02/21/2014 5:23:45 PM PST by 41Thunder (It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 41Thunder

Until that question is resolved I like Mike
Vanderboegh’s answer when asked about registration and possible confiscation: “You can try to take our guns but we’ll kill you.” Now, that’s a statement that doesn’t require a Supreme Court to interpret!


19 posted on 02/21/2014 6:09:00 PM PST by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
Until that question is resolved I like Mike Vanderboegh’s answer

Likewise. Mike hit it out of the park with his piece. Concise, straight forward and directly to the point.

20 posted on 03/04/2014 9:31:06 PM PST by 41Thunder (It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 41Thunder

Another thing that has bothered me for quite awhile is the idea that a law has to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court before the people can act contrary to it. Yet the Nuremburg trials made the point that individual soldiers had the duty to decide whether or not a law or an order was valid.

By that measure, each of us has to decide the constitutionality of a law. Of course we also have to be prepared to pay for making a wrong decision too - kinda like another group who once pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. In their case it worked out well. For us? I guess we’ll just have to find out.


21 posted on 03/05/2014 1:56:23 PM PST by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson