Supreme Court Applies 2nd Amendment to States

[BritChaser]

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its 5-4 opinion in the McDonald case in which a city ordinance effectively barring all possession of hand guns was challenged under the 2nd Amendment. The Court, majority opinion by Justice Alito, held that the 2nd Amendment right to possess a hand gun at home for self-defense, recognized earlier in the Heller case to apply in the District of Columbia, applies to the states too. Justice Thomas wrote separately to argue that the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause, not the doctrine of "selective incorporation" under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, should be the basis for applying the 2nd Amendment to the states. Justices Stevens and Breyer wrote dissenting opinions. Justice Scalia, who concurred with Justice Alito, wrote separately to decimate the reasoning of Justice Stevens's entire dissent, quite a drubbing as Stevens heads out the courthouse door to retirement. The decision, available on the Supreme Court's website, is a whopping 217 pages long, but contains quite a history of Americans' involvement with firearms and sets out the most refined arguments ever published in our country on both sides of the gun rights issue. The majority also reiterate that the reasonable regulation of firearms by the federal government and the states - such as prohibiting their possession by felons and the mentally incapacitated - is constitutionally permissible. Hunters, your gun rights have never been, and are not now, in jeopardy. Let's hunt!

 

[kansasbrittany]

Thanks for bringing this to the site Britchaser. I saw it several days ago and wanted to share it, but I don't see much in the way of political anything on this site so I chose not to re-introduce it, but you have the right idea by doing so. We all need to stay abreast of what is going on in Washington whether we like it or not. In fact, the less we like it, the more we need to be involved.

This is a huge win for gun folks and all Americans.........even the anti's. When or if the sh#! ever hits the fan, the antis will be glad they let us keep our guns just as the founders planned. The Japanese would've invaded the US in the 40's if it weren't for private gun ownership. It's a very important issue.

 

[moellermd]

Yesterday was truly a great day to be an American. I think I will go buy a gun in celebration. Now as long as we can keep this civil this thread might manage to stick around.

 

[kansasbrittany]

Yesterday was truly a great day to be an American. I think I will go buy a gun in celebration. Now as long as we can keep this civil this thread might manage to stick around.

I wish I could've said it in so few words

I just can't seem to keep my opinions to myself.

 

[jmac]

hope you guys know that if kagan gets confirmed it tips the balance of the court. next vote maybe 4 to five against.

 

[tmrichardson]

That would be news to me jmac. Replacing a liberal with a liberal doesn't tip the balance. They don't add justices without subtracting one, remember....

Kagan might even be a bit more moderate than Stevens!

 

[jmac]

That would be news to me jmac. Replacing a liberal with a liberal doesn't tip the balance. They don't add justices without subtracting one, remember....

Kagan might even be a bit more moderate than Stevens!

tim, you are correct, but id feel better if we were adding a conservative and not moderate or liberal.

 

[BritChaser]

Gun Ownership and National Security

Thanks for bringing this to the site Britchaser. I saw it several days ago and wanted to share it, but I don't see much in the way of political anything on this site so I chose not to re-introduce it, but you have the right idea by doing so. We all need to stay abreast of what is going on in Washington whether we like it or not. In fact, the less we like it, the more we need to be involved.

This is a huge win for gun folks and all Americans.........even the anti's. When or if the sh#! ever hits the fan, the antis will be glad they let us keep our guns just as the founders planned. The Japanese would've invaded the US in the 40's if it weren't for private gun ownership. It's a very important issue.

With what is going on along our border with Mexico, the importance of private gun ownership to state and national security arises as it did in WWII. The brazen Mexican drug gangs are now so emboldened that they may try to do on the U.S. side what they have done in border areas on their side. The Mexican government simply does not have control of some areas along the border and even in the interior of that country. The average Mexican citizen is unarmed and has no reasonable way to acquire arms for self-defense.

 

[BritChaser]

All Comments Very Civil and Well Said

Everyone is very civil in this thread, a good thing for one and all who like this forum. Excellent comments.

While Elena Kagan may not be who I would nominate for the Supreme Court, I am glad a woman is nominated because there are plenty of female lawyers in this country who are Supreme Court quality. Four to five of the justices should be women. I want more women hunting too. If we can get them into hunting, our goal of preserving the hunting tradition will be far easier. What anti-gun male politician could stand up to a woman who says she loves to hunt, loves to shoot her gun to put game on the family dinner table, and loves men who do the same?

 

[BritChaser]

Brag on Your New Gun

Yesterday was truly a great day to be an American. I think I will go buy a gun in celebration. Now as long as we can keep this civil this thread might manage to stick around.

When you get your new 2nd Amendment gun, tell us all about it. Maybe you can have the 2nd Amendment, or a part of it, engraved on the receiver.

 

[jnormanh]

hope you guys know that if kagan gets confirmed it tips the balance of the court. next vote maybe 4 to five against.

How so? She's replacing a liberal justice. What's your count of the court, liberal/conservative? Can you name the justices?

 

[jnormanh]

There has never been a Supreme court which was so full of idealogs as now. Every decision is 5/4. That's just plain wrong. Some questions should be answered 9/0 like Brown v Board of Education was. Today that would be 5/4.

It's a good idea to have more women on the court, so it represents our society, but it could use a Hispanic, maybe a Native American.

If you want to see what's wrong with the Supreme Court, just look at the questioning of Kagan as conducted by one Jefferson Beauregard Sessions.

 

[kansasbrittany]

People are paranoid about their gun rights, I understand that and your point is well taken.
Everything up to and including "No answer? Hmmm." is begging for a raging political debate. The comments made after that are a great contribution to the thread, but the earlier part of that post really seems like an effort to get some nasty comments flying around to me.

To the group, let's not call people out w/ things like "2nd amendmenters" or liberals or right wingers or anything like that.

 

[kansasbrittany]

How so? She's replacing a liberal justice. What's your count of the court, liberal/conservative? Can you name the justices?

Please remember to respond to one another in a civil tone (jmac, I know you will express your opinion, just don't get too inflamed when you do).

jnorman, you're intelligent and your input is important, whether the majority agrees or not. BTW, I only moderate to keep spam off of the boards. These comments were brought to you by a concerned member, not a spokesperson for the site.

Thanks

 

[BritChaser]

Good Commentary

I have, and always have had, all the guns I want, and I use them whenever I like. I can buy or sell guns and ammo any time I like, from and to anyone (except criminals and mental defectives). Sometimes I have to fill out a piece of paper. No problem. What's the big deal?

And for you second amendmenters, tell us, what does the qualifying introductory language to the second mean, you know, the part you always forget and which says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

To which militia do you belong in order that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." applies to you?

And what's an "arm"? Single shot muzzle loader as the Founders used? Semi-auto pistol? 50 cal. Browning? Scud missile? Nuclear bomb? Does the Second give you the unlimited right to a flame thrower? Twin Bofors? 16" Naval gun? They're "arms, are they not?

No answer? Hmmmmm.

There has never been a Supreme court which was so full of idealogs as now. Every decision is 5/4. That's just plain wrong. Some questions should be answered 9/0 like Brown v Board of Education was. Today that would be 5/4.

It's a good idea to have more women on the court, so it represents our society, but it could use a Hispanic, maybe a Native American. And why are there no Protestants on the court, no atheists? This isn't just a Catholic and Jewish country, is it?

If you want to see what's wrong with the Supreme Court, just look at the questioning of Kagan as conducted by one Jefferson Beauregard Sessions.

Good commentary, sir.

Yes, there are so many questions left unanswered by the Keller and McDonald decisions. The decisions clarify only that the majority of the Supreme Court understands the 2nd Amendment to provide a right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Other issues you raise will have to wait because the Supreme Court does not issue decisions on hypothetical questions; there has to be an actual case and controversy before it. Whether a person has a right to possess a howitzer can only be determined if someone is specifically charged with illegal possession of a howitzer, claims a 2nd Amendment right to have a howitzer, and the case is appealled to the Supreme Court. But there is no doubt in my mind as to how any court, including the Supreme Court, would rule, and I further predict the decision would be 9-0 that there is no right to possess a howitzer under any law including the 2nd Amendment.

My state, Kansas, has a militia as provided in the state constitution and statutes -- all able bodied men 21 - 45 who are not in the Guard, the U.S. Armed Forces, or already honorably discharged. A very remarkable situation would have to arise for the militia to be mustered again after more than a century and a half of dormancy.

Many Supreme Court decisions are in fact unanimous but they deal with arcane cases that are not reported in the news as are cases dealing with gun rights, abortion, gay marriage, and other highly controversial, politically charged issues. It's the highly controversial cases that split the court 5-4 and 6-3 along sometimes predictable idealogical lines. I suppose that reflects the larger society and our diverse views. It's a helluva country, isn't it?

 

[jnormanh]

Well Britchaser, it didn't take long and we have an inflamatory post. So much for civility. I hope the rest of the board can just let jnorman's comments roll off w/o getting too excited.

Everything up to and including "No answer? Hmmm." is begging for a raging political debate. The comments made after that are a great contribution to the thread, but the earlier part of that post really seems like an effort to get some nasty comments flying around to me. Let's not call people out w/ things like "2nd amendmenters" or liberals or right wingers or anything like that.

jnorman,

If you're really intersted in answers to your questions, I'd be happy to respond to them in a pm, but I don't want to witness what I believe will unfold if I or anyone else answers them here. I hate to see this great forum of guys divided by a political debate. Other hunting sites have that sort of crap going on and eventually people just stop coming.

Sure thing, kansasbrittany. If you've got anything you prefer to say in private, send it on. Got answers? I'd like to hear them.

However you should note that I did not start this thread.

jmac is opposed to liberals. You object to "calling people out", so why do you not object to the comments by jmac?

Your apparently don't like my opinions, but you yourself say
"I just can't seem to keep my opinions to myself. "

Your opinions are okay, but mine are not?

You can make political comments but I cannot?

 

[kansasbrittany]

Sure thing, kansasbrittany. If you've got anything you prefer to say in private, send it on. Got answers? I'd like to hear them.

However you should note that I did not start this thread.

jmac is opposed to liberals. You object to "calling people out", so why do you not object to the comments by jmac?

Your apparently don't like my opinions, but you yourself say
"I just can't seem to keep my opinions to myself. "

Your opinions are okay, but mine are not?

You can make political comments but I cannot?

Sir, I sent a private email to you as you were responding. No, please do continue to share your opinions, just don't do as I always did and hammer it out on the keyboard w/o considering how your comments might be taken. I didn't notice that jmac called out liberals, other than using the word liberal. I'll be honest, I don't even read his posts. He tends to throw out an opinion, but doesn't really back it with anything intriguing like you do. Your political views are very insightful, it's just your internet personality that seems to harsh. Either my words didn't come out right, or your perception isn't accurate if you think I was trying to attack you or stop you from sharing your viewpoints.

I certainly wasn't trying to make you angry or upset. I only wanted to remind everyone to keep it civil. I am excited about answering your questions and debating with you via pms on the controversial subjects. There will be no bad mouting of any political party or any references made to your political orientation. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT I ENJOY READING WHAT YOU HAVE TO POST. I just think that the way you put things sometimes feels like an attack to some folks.

The very statement you chose to point out "I can't seem to keep my opinions to myself" is the point I stopped my post. A few years ago or even now on another site, I might have went off with something like "left-wing this, or libby cool-aide that". I came back to edit my posts and actually thought I should delete them b/c I made a mistake by what could be considered calling you out in front of the group.....please see it as begging you in front of the group.

Gotta go to a baseball game. I look forward to exchanging views via pm tomorrow. Please get back to exchaning your views in this thread w/o any group name calling so to speak. Hopefully jmac will tone it down too (just my wish, don't be offended jmac).

touchy bunch around here......Yes, I'm guilty of this too.

 

[jnormanh]

Sir, I sent a private email to you as you were responding. No, please do continue to share your opinions, just don't do as I always did and hammer it out on the keyboard w/o considering how your comments might be taken. I didn't notice that jmac called out liberals, other than using the word liberal. I'll be honest, I don't even read his posts. He tends to throw out an opinion, but doesn't really back it with anything intriguing like you do. Your political views are very insightful, it's just your internet personality that seems to harsh. Either my words didn't come out right, or your perception isn't accurate if you think I was trying to attack you or stop you from sharing your viewpoints.

I certainly wasn't trying to make you angry or upset. I only wanted to remind everyone to keep it civil. I am excited about answering your questions and debating with you via pms on the controversial subjects. There will be no bad mouting of any political party or any references made to your political orientation. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT I ENJOY READING WHAT YOU HAVE TO POST. I just think that the way you put things sometimes feels like an attack to some folks.

The very statement you chose to point out "I can't seem to keep my opinions to myself" is the point I stopped my post. A few years ago or even now on another site, I might have went off with something like "left-wing this, or libby cool-aide that". I came back to edit my posts and actually thought I should delete them b/c I made a mistake by what could be considered calling you out in front of the group.....please see it as begging you in front of the group.

Gotta go to a baseball game. I look forward to exchanging views via pm tomorrow. Please get back to exchaning your views in this thread w/o any group name calling so to speak. Hopefully jmac will tone it down too (just my wish, don't be offended jmac).

touchy bunch around here......Yes, I'm guilty of this too.

Fair enough, kb. I'll take down what might be offensive comments on my part.

 

[BritChaser]

Tone Matters

Sure thing, kansasbrittany. If you've got anything you prefer to say in private, send it on. Got answers? I'd like to hear them.

However you should note that I did not start this thread.

jmac is opposed to liberals. You object to "calling people out", so why do you not object to the comments by jmac?

Your apparently don't like my opinions, but you yourself say
"I just can't seem to keep my opinions to myself. "

Your opinions are okay, but mine are not?

You can make political comments but I cannot?

We try to avoid a combative tone in this forum. Please help us in that goal.

 

[jmac]

fair enough gentlemen, I have expressed my opinions on here. This is a blog site. I try not to offend people but I still have the right to express my opinion. You may not understand what I am saying. I do not care, I have the right to express it and you have the right to disagree with it. I expressed one political thread that I started. It got dumped and rightfully so. I have expressed my opinion. You did not have to agree with me. That is what is great about this site and I do not go off willy nilly and if I do I apologize. Can you all say the same? I feel I am being unfairly attacked here because I expressed my opinions. If you think I need to be more clear simply say so. I will spend a half hour writing a book on what you are expressing. I figure you people are smart enough to either express what you are saying or understand where I am going. That may be my mistake. I am not picking on anybody and I do not want to start a war with anybody. Fair enough??