TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Supreme Ct.: 2nd Amendment to apply to local laws
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Supreme Ct.: 2nd Amendment to apply to local laws

post #1 of 14
6/28/10 at 11:09am
Thread Starter 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us...us.html?src=me

I find this fascinating! Not just that the ruling regarding DC's handgun ban was upheld, but that this will apply to ALL states and local governments.

I really wonder how this might impact public universities with firearm bans.
Reply
post #2 of 14
6/28/10 at 11:43am
I did not take the ruling to mean that, "DC's handgun ban was upheld", am I missing something?
Reply
post #3 of 14
6/28/10 at 11:47am
No, the OP meant that the Supreme Court ruling on DC's gun ban was upheld and actually strengthened, since there was some doubt about the ruling applying to anything but Federal entities (which the DC government actually is).

This is why no anti-gun advocate wanted to take a gun ban case to the Supreme Court. They were afraid it would make their situation worse, as it definitely has.
Reply
post #4 of 14
6/28/10 at 11:55am
I got it now, tad slow on the uptake today. Thank you.
Reply
post #5 of 14
6/28/10 at 1:42pm
I actually thought that the DC ruling had already addressed that. I'm a bit behind the times on this issue apparently.
Reply
post #6 of 14
6/28/10 at 1:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I actually thought that the DC ruling had already addressed that. I'm a bit behind the times on this issue apparently.
It is because DC is a special case as it is directly under federal rule. The Chicago case applies to local governments in the states. This ruling clarifies it.
Reply
post #7 of 14
6/28/10 at 2:07pm
Well, apparently, the court has dodged the "Yay or Nay" ruling again. From what I'm reading, they ruled that the states must abide by the 2nd Amendment, but that the states are still allowed to impose rules for social order and public safety. ????

As soon as I find an article on it that doesn't have a thousand snarky comments in the comments section, I'll link it...
Reply
post #8 of 14
6/28/10 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Well, apparently, the court has dodged the "Yay or Nay" ruling again. From what I'm reading, they ruled that the states must abide by the 2nd Amendment, but that the states are still allowed to impose rules for social order and public safety. ????

As soon as I find an article on it that doesn't have a thousand snarky comments in the comments section, I'll link it ...


Even you can't do the impossible.
Reply
post #9 of 14
6/28/10 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Well, apparently, the court has dodged the "Yay or Nay" ruling again. From what I'm reading, they ruled that the states must abide by the 2nd Amendment, but that the states are still allowed to impose rules for social order and public safety. ????

As soon as I find an article on it that doesn't have a thousand snarky comments in the comments section, I'll link it...
I believe it means that the states can still impose rules for social order and public safety but they can't exceed federal firearms laws. It's the reason why Feinstein () kept failing in her anti-gun legislation in California.
Reply
post #10 of 14
6/28/10 at 4:30pm
As someone that this ruling directly affects I'll give you what I understand it to mean, gleaning through the articles that are all so extremely one sided (on either side!) it's unbelievable!

(Apparently Freedom of the Press now means that the Press has the Freedom to publish articles that are as much opinion as fact and present them as the truth )

It means that a state or locality cannot pass a law that is overriding in nature, i.e. a ban on handguns, a ban on rifles over a .22 calibre, a ban on keeping loaded firearms in the house under any circumstances or under circumstances which would preclude them from being used in self-defense. They can pass laws that limit the use or ability of any Tom, Dick or Harry to possess or own any type of firearm, i.e. fees and required courses to aquire a permit for a handgun as D.C. has passed, and they can restrict narrowly defined firearms, i.e. semi-automatic handgun that takes a magazine of more than 5 rounds also from D.C. law. Chicago Mayor Daly has vowed that they will pass similar and even more extensive legislation than D.C. has with this ruling which wipes out their handgun ban as well.

Of course the reactionary laws haven't been challenged in court and there will undoubtedly be laws that push the limits of this ruling just like there have been Roe v. Wade cases in the 30+ years since that was ruled.

My personal reaction was:
Reply
post #11 of 14
6/28/10 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
As someone that this ruling directly affects I'll give you what I understand it to mean, gleaning through the articles that are all so extremely one sided (on either side!) it's unbelievable!

(Apparently Freedom of the Press now means that the Press has the Freedom to publish articles that are as much opinion as fact and present them as the truth )

It means that a state or locality cannot pass a law that is overriding in nature, i.e. a ban on handguns, a ban on rifles over a .22 calibre, a ban on keeping loaded firearms in the house under any circumstances or under circumstances which would preclude them from being used in self-defense. They can pass laws that limit the use or ability of any Tom, Dick or Harry to possess or own any type of firearm, i.e. fees and required courses to aquire a permit for a handgun as D.C. has passed, and they can restrict narrowly defined firearms, i.e. semi-automatic handgun that takes a magazine of more than 5 rounds also from D.C. law. Chicago Mayor Daly has vowed that they will pass similar and even more extensive legislation than D.C. has with this ruling which wipes out their handgun ban as well.

Of course the reactionary laws haven't been challenged in court and there will undoubtedly be laws that push the limits of this ruling just like there have been Roe v. Wade cases in the 30+ years since that was ruled.

My personal reaction was:

I completely agree with the media going hogwild with this, in both directions. I just read an article a few minutes ago that pretty much declared that the US will be as wild as 1980's Beirut by Halloween.
Reply
post #12 of 14
6/28/10 at 6:00pm
Thread Starter 
I tried to find a "middle-of-the-road" article and just decided to go with a source that wasn't from Fox, CNN or MSNBC, as there are folks on both sides of the aisle who have problems with one or more of those three sources. Un-biased, it is not, however.

I guess I'm just really interested in seeing how this ruling will impact the nation as a whole.

I mean, IMO, I think before anyone is allowed to have a handgun, they need to take a safety course, a training course (to learn how to shoot the darn thing), and pass a test. I feel the same for ANY gun.

We have to take a test to drive a car legally, why not a test to be able to own a gun?
Reply
post #13 of 14
6/29/10 at 6:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by emrldsky View Post
I tried to find a "middle-of-the-road" article and just decided to go with a source that wasn't from Fox, CNN or MSNBC, as there are folks on both sides of the aisle who have problems with one or more of those three sources. Un-biased, it is not, however.

I guess I'm just really interested in seeing how this ruling will impact the nation as a whole.

I mean, IMO, I think before anyone is allowed to have a handgun, they need to take a safety course, a training course (to learn how to shoot the darn thing), and pass a test. I feel the same for ANY gun.

We have to take a test to drive a car legally, why not a test to be able to own a gun?
I might agree with you that it would be "nice" to have a test, BUT the Court affirmed that the "Right" to bear arms, is a RIGHT, while driving a car is a PRIVILEGE. And a "right" precludes restricting it by mandating tests, etc.

This is one of the very few issues within the Constitution or its Amendments that was not foreseen to the degree of the problems we are now encountering. I'm a conservative on most issues, but I truly believe that the second phrase of the Amendment is nullified by the first part.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I would love to know the minority opinion on this most recent decision. I maintain (I know, who cares!) that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. We now have national armed forces and state and local law enforcement to replace the citizen militias of the 18th century. So if a militia is no longer necessary, then why should the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not be infringed?

Requiring safety courses and tests would infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, some might argue. It's a very sticky situation. And if a group of cult members like the Branch Davidians or the Ruby Ridge people pick up guns to fight off the people they declare to be their enemies, couldn't this be argued as their right to form a militia under this amendment?

There is lots of food for thought here. And it just isn't black and white.
Reply
post #14 of 14
6/29/10 at 8:17pm
I think cities and states would still be allowed make it difficult to own a firearm, I just don't think they can outright ban them with this ruling. At least that is what I have heard from talking heads on the radio.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Supreme Ct.: 2nd Amendment to apply to local laws