Skip to comments.Supreme Court hears 3 gun cases
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 Courts 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 ...
Gun cases can talk?...........no wonder there’s noise in my closet. I thought it was mice..................
They are Screaming “Fill Me!”
No, they are screaming, “Take me out to the range!”.................
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?
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:
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.
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.
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".
That explains the murmuring I hear from the waters in the lake I was fishing when the “canoe incident” happened.
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...
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.
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.
will vote behind closed doors to accept
Why vote at all if the vote is going to be to accept?
“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...”
“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
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.
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!
Likewise. Mike hit it out of the park with his piece. Concise, straight forward and directly to the point.
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.