Freepmail me or ping me from the original thread to get on/off the 2010 Texas Governor's Race ping list.
Posted on 10/10/2009 7:23:41 PM PDT by neverdem
Two pro-gun rights senators are wading into a lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court that could further expand the Second Amendment and restrict governments’ ability to police the flow of firearms.
Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) are joining Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) in filing a joint amicus brief before the Supreme Court — repeating an effort they first made last year in the District of Columbia’s gun-rights case.
The lawmakers say they plan to ask justices to apply the Second Amendment more forcibly to states, siding with the National Rifle Association in seeking to overturn the city of Chicago’s handgun registration laws.
The Supreme Court last year already struck down the D.C. gun ban by rullng that the Second Amendment guaranteed a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The Court last week agreed to hear the Chicago case during its fall term.
“With its landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed an individual’s right to bear arms is a fundamental, Constitutionally-guaranteed liberty,” said Hutchison. “The Second Amendment should protect all lawful gun owners, but some courts have not viewed this right as one protected from state infringement. I look forward to the Supreme Court’s consideration of McDonald v. the City of Chicago so this extremely important Constitutional question regarding a fundamental, individual right can be settled, once and for all.”
“The Second Amendment guarantees gun rights for all law-abiding Americans, no matter where they live,” said Tester, vice chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. “I’m glad Republicans and Democrats are working together to tell the Supreme Court we expect it to stand up for our gun rights in this important case.”
Freepmail me or ping me from the original thread to get on/off the 2010 Texas Governor's Race ping list.
I don’t mind this, other than a rino and a rat trying to show how ‘conservative’ they are.
There may be panic in this. They may want to soothe the gun owners in all the leftie pervert big city states so they don't get up and drive the next elections significantly right and endanger all the other leftie pervert perks allowed by Marxist government bureaucrats now.
A pro-gun ‘rat is better than an anti-gun RINO any day. The Republicans should cleanse their ranks of RINOs, and this as good a time to do it as any. Probably better.
The problem I have with “pro-gun rats” is that their party is against them. It’s like anti-abortion rats. A complete joke.
If they were truly pro-gun, anti-abortion, conservative, they wouldn’t be in the democrat party. Since they are in that party, it just tells me that they will sell us out when it becomes politically convenient.
Same with liberal republicans. They might as well be rats, but because it is politically expedient to be republican, they stay in the party and ruin it. Arlen Spector is a good example.
This whole case strikes me as ridiculously simple.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and all state and federal laws MUST comply with the Constitution or else they are instantly void. Could a state pass a law allowing warrantless searches, for example? Or reject the 13th Amendment and bring back slavery? Of course not! The Constitution is Supreme and all the states agreed to comply with the Constitution when they ratifed.
The Second Amendment, therefore, applies to all states and supercedes all other state law. If the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states, then neither does the 3rd, so make room for those troops you’ll be housing! And how many states ignored the 18th Amendment and allowed liquor sales during Prohibition? Supreme Law is self-explanatory.
If the Supreme Court says Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states, then we’ve got a whole raft of problems!
But...." Blue Dog Democrat is an oxyMoron" may be confusing..
Are you saying that "Blue Dog" != "Democrat"? ...{:-)
OTOH... "Any Democrat is a Moron"...is unequivocal.
A bit of both, actually.
The rights set forth in the Bill of Rights inhere in persons, not institutions (e.g., states). How, then, can a state presume to deny a citizen a right that is acknowledged as such in the Constitition.? The exercise of a right may be regulated, but not to the point of nullification of the basic right.
Since the SCOTUS ruled in 1989 (DeShaney v. Winnebago County) that the government has no obligation to protect on from harm, even when the harm is known and imminent, an individual SHOULD (my word) be allowed to be armed to protect him or herself, especially in their own home. But I don't know that the court would rule that way at all.
Mark
“The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and all state and federal laws MUST comply with the Constitution or else they are instantly void. Could a state pass a law allowing warrantless searches, for example? Or reject the 13th Amendment and bring back slavery? Of course not! The Constitution is Supreme and all the states agreed to comply with the Constitution when they ratifed.”
Actually, the Bill of Rights was passed only to limit the power of the federal government, in order to persuade the various states to ratify the Constitution. The states were not concerned about limiting their own power. As a result, the Bill of Rights was never held to apply to the states until the 20th century, when a series of SCOTUS decisions starting in 1925 looked beyond the original intent of the founders in order to apply a number of these rights to the states. The Second Amendment is only now being so examined.
There are many people who feel that it is wrong for SCOTUS to look beyond the original intent of those who wrote the Bill of Rights. They often refer to those judges who have expanded these rights as “activist” judges. It is a valid position, but Second Amendment rights are so vital that I think I have to side with the “activists” on this one.
Under our federal Constitution as originally intended and interpreted? Yes. At our founding the states were a hundred years or more older than the new federal government. They had a lot of experience in the business and needed no advice from the feds.
Bump
I read somewhere that the 14th amendment requires states to respect each other's drivers licenses. If so, that should also apply to CCW licenses.
No, not amendment 14, but article 4, section 1. Maybe a dyslexic person told you that? It’s unclear which way that might go. If Florida fully respected New York’s laws, I wouldn’t be able to carry there. OTOH, if they fully respected our laws, I would.
Anyway, concealed weapons permits are not mutually recognized among all states, but many states have reciprocity agreements and recognize each others’ permits.
Since when does the Judicial Branch get to make legislation from the Bench? Those cases you mentioned are some of the worst on record and rank right up there with Roe V Wade and the Kelo decision.
Past due time to over turn the precedents concocted from them and get back to real Constitutional principles.
That would be the same Presser that states:
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration [city laws requiring a parade permit] do not have this effect.
And yet, every federal court that has cited to presser overlooks this inconvenient statement, instead, cherry picking and isolating this nugget:
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.
Now, clearly, those two sentiments (states can't prohibit keep and bear arms, but the second amendment does not empower the feds to assert control over the states) seem directly at odds in this case. And one would think that a competent court would address this divergence. But no. The federal judiciary is corrupt when it comes to second amendment jurisprudence, and the rot goes all the way to the top.
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.