Replies

There were laws that defined and allowed nude dancing. Citizens filed suit to stop the practice, saying that nothing in the Constitution allows nude dancing. If the USSC said that nude dancing wasn't protected speech, the laws would have been struck down.

False. Such a decision would not have struck down any State or local laws on nude dancing.

The State/local laws could have been changed through acts of a legislative body. A USSC decision saying nude dancing is not protected by the First Amendment leaves the issue to State/locals to decide.

Same with the Second Amendment. A USSC ruling saying the Second Amendment does not protect an individual RKBA leaves the decision to the States/locals. Just like it is currently.

If the USSC gives a narrow definition and says that political ads less than 30 days before an election are not protected speech, no laws would be struck down. Do I have that correct?

Correct. It would be left to the appropriate legislative body to change or not change such laws.

States that currently define and protect political ads less than 30 days prior to an election -- those laws can remain on the books?

Correct. Why would they not? Such a ruling does not mean States cannot protect such speech. It means they are not restrained by the First Amendment if they choose to ban it.

"Such a decision would not have struck down any State or local laws on nude dancing."

You're setting up these strawman arguments just to knock them down. I never said that the decision would strike down the laws. I said the decision would open the door for litigation, the result of which would strike down the existing laws.

I said in my post #57 that IF the second amendment were incorporated (ie., applied to the states) the word "arms" could be interpreted by the USSC, some time in the future, as to NOT include handguns.

Does that ruling change anything? Any state laws? No, it doesn't.

But, that ruling now allows the gun grabbers to go after state constitutions that protect "arms", and push for laws banning hadguns since they're not protected by the second amendment. The USSC says so, and that applies to all states laws.

Can they do this now? Sure, but it would be up to each state court, possibly a federal appeals court, to determine the definition of "arms" in their state constitution. Now, maybe the gun grabbers will get lucky in a city like Wilmette, Illinois or Morton Grove, Illinois, or Chicago and get handguns banned in those cities. But that ruling has absolutely no effect or influence on other states.

"Why would they not? Such a ruling does not mean States cannot protect such speech."

The federal government will not allow such an ad to be run no matter what the state says.

If federal law says something like, "Private organizations shall not advertise their candidates platform within 30 days prior to an election", but the state allowed it as a free speech issue, the state would be found in violation of the Supremacy Clause, yes?

I mean, I'd like to believe you, but I don't.