SCOTUS to hear case on local gun bans

[Specop 007]

We've done Heller vs DC, now its time for round 2 and go for incorporation. Although in some ways I hope they (SCOTUS) rule against it and support the local gun ban that is in place.

Either way it'll be a win for gun rights I think.

Click

"Taking on a major new constitutional dispute over gun rights, the Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to decide whether to apply the Second Amendment to state, county and city government laws. "

 

[blackangst1]

Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Yeah, neither have I. Seems like bs to me.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Just imagine your local police arresting you for saying the President is an asshole.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Incorporation. A double edged sword of such wicked cunning and beauty....

On one hand it affirms that the BoR cannot be denied to anyone in any state. However on the other hand it also virtually eliminates the States rights to govern themselves as they see fit which negates the 10th to some degree.

As I understand it.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Yeah, neither have I. Seems like bs to me.

i always saw it as a chain of command, more or less.

federal > state > local

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Just imagine your local police arresting you for saying the President is an asshole.

What does that have to do with the second amendment?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Yeah, neither have I. Seems like bs to me.

i always saw it as a chain of command, more or less.

federal > state > local

Then why couldnt a state/city, say, enact a law forbidding free speech of some kind? Or outlaw churches of <insert religion here>?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Just imagine your local police arresting you for saying the President is an asshole.

What does that have to do with the second amendment?

Everything.

The case is, simply put, why is it the police CANNOT arrest me for saying the president is an asshole however they CAN arrest me for possessing a firearm (In this case a pistol).

In other words the Rights are not being upheld equally.

 

[0marTheZealot]

It's about time. Gun bans do not make people safer (see Chicago). All they do is take the guns out of ordinary citizens who can now no longer defend themselves against the armed criminal element.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Yeah, neither have I. Seems like bs to me.

i always saw it as a chain of command, more or less.

federal > state > local

Then why couldnt a state/city, say, enact a law forbidding free speech of some kind? Or outlaw churches of <insert religion here>?

In the early days of the country (actually up to the end of the 19th century) they could do exactly that, provided the state constitution didn't mirror the US Constitution in that regard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...ation_(Bill_of_Rights)

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

No amendments are absolute; the court uses various standards to decide whether a conflicting law or circumstance stands or falls.

As far as the 2nd amendment, another issue is interpreting what it really means. There are two parts to the 2nd amendment, it doesn't just say the right to bear arms is absolute, which is what a lot of people think it says.

 

[MotF Bane]

Well, the rest of the Amendments are protected for such already, so it's about time.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Just imagine your local police arresting you for saying the President is an asshole.

What does that have to do with the second amendment?

Everything.

The case is, simply put, why is it the police CANNOT arrest me for saying the president is an asshole however they CAN arrest me for possessing a firearm (In this case a pistol).

In other words the Rights are not being upheld equally.

My bad. Got ya. Yeah I dont get it either. Never have.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

No amendments are absolute; the court uses various standards to decide whether a conflicting law or circumstance stands or falls.

As far as the 2nd amendment, another issue is interpreting what it really means. There are two parts to the 2nd amendment, it doesn't just say the right to bear arms is absolute, which is what a lot of people think it says.

Then the guarantee of free speech isnt absolute either. Explain why <insert city here> couldnt enact a law forbidding as specop suggested saying the president is an asshole?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

No amendments are absolute; the court uses various standards to decide whether a conflicting law or circumstance stands or falls.

As far as the 2nd amendment, another issue is interpreting what it really means. There are two parts to the 2nd amendment, it doesn't just say the right to bear arms is absolute, which is what a lot of people think it says.

Then the guarantee of free speech isnt absolute either. Explain why <insert city here> couldnt enact a law forbidding as specop suggested saying the president is an asshole?

Read the wiki link, it's a good summary of why/how states cannot now contravene certain amendments.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Just imagine your local police arresting you for saying the President is an asshole.

What does that have to do with the second amendment?

Everything.

The case is, simply put, why is it the police CANNOT arrest me for saying the president is an asshole however they CAN arrest me for possessing a firearm (In this case a pistol).

In other words the Rights are not being upheld equally.

offhand, i'd say that with gun regulations, the 2nd amendment is still being upheld. you are allowed to possess firearms (though not *any* firearm), but only if you jump through whatever hoops to legally obtain and own it.

since there are far fewer regulations on free speech (shouting fire in a theater, etc.) it's much easier to get away with saying "the president is an ass."

now if you made a threat against the president, then i'd expect to land myself in FPMITAP shortly, or be visited by MIBs at the very least

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

No amendments are absolute; the court uses various standards to decide whether a conflicting law or circumstance stands or falls.

As far as the 2nd amendment, another issue is interpreting what it really means. There are two parts to the 2nd amendment, it doesn't just say the right to bear arms is absolute, which is what a lot of people think it says.

Then the guarantee of free speech isnt absolute either. Explain why <insert city here> couldnt enact a law forbidding as specop suggested saying the president is an asshole?

Read the wiki link, it's a good summary of why/how states cannot now contravene certain amendments.

Yeah. Re-reading for the third time.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Just imagine your local police arresting you for saying the President is an asshole.

What does that have to do with the second amendment?

Nothing.

I'm agreeing with you.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Just imagine your local police arresting you for saying the President is an asshole.

What does that have to do with the second amendment?

Everything.

The case is, simply put, why is it the police CANNOT arrest me for saying the president is an asshole however they CAN arrest me for possessing a firearm (In this case a pistol).

In other words the Rights are not being upheld equally.

offhand, i'd say that with gun regulations, the 2nd amendment is still being upheld. you are allowed to possess firearms (though not *any* firearm), but only if you jump through whatever hoops to legally obtain and own it.

since there are far fewer regulations on free speech (shouting fire in a theater, etc.) it's much easier to get away with saying "the president is an ass."

now if you made a threat against the president, then i'd expect to land myself in FPMITAP shortly, or be visited by MIBs at the very least

Yes, but the amendment uses the word 'bear', not possess - there are two very different meanings there.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Just imagine your local police arresting you for saying the President is an asshole.

What does that have to do with the second amendment?

Everything.

The case is, simply put, why is it the police CANNOT arrest me for saying the president is an asshole however they CAN arrest me for possessing a firearm (In this case a pistol).

In other words the Rights are not being upheld equally.

offhand, i'd say that with gun regulations, the 2nd amendment is still being upheld. you are allowed to possess firearms (though not *any* firearm), but only if you jump through whatever hoops to legally obtain and own it.

since there are far fewer regulations on free speech (shouting fire in a theater, etc.) it's much easier to get away with saying "the president is an ass."

now if you made a threat against the president, then i'd expect to land myself in FPMITAP shortly, or be visited by MIBs at the very least

Yes, but the amendment uses the word 'bear', not possess - there are two very different meanings there.

Ah yes. I can hold it, but its unclear if I can keep it on my property

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Just imagine your local police arresting you for saying the President is an asshole.

What does that have to do with the second amendment?

Everything.

The case is, simply put, why is it the police CANNOT arrest me for saying the president is an asshole however they CAN arrest me for possessing a firearm (In this case a pistol).

In other words the Rights are not being upheld equally.

offhand, i'd say that with gun regulations, the 2nd amendment is still being upheld. you are allowed to possess firearms (though not *any* firearm), but only if you jump through whatever hoops to legally obtain and own it.

since there are far fewer regulations on free speech (shouting fire in a theater, etc.) it's much easier to get away with saying "the president is an ass."

now if you made a threat against the president, then i'd expect to land myself in FPMITAP shortly, or be visited by MIBs at the very least

Yes, but the amendment uses the word 'bear', not possess - there are two very different meanings there.

Ah yes. I can hold it, but its unclear if I can keep it on my property

Wasn't going in that direction. Most states have more restirctions on carrying than they do on owning a firearm.

 

[Banzai042]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ive never understood why a local law cant override an amendment, except the second. Can someone explain?

Incorporation. A double edged sword of such wicked cunning and beauty....

On one hand it affirms that the BoR cannot be denied to anyone in any state. However on the other hand it also virtually eliminates the States rights to govern themselves as they see fit which negates the 10th to some degree.

As I understand it.

How would Incorporation conflict with the 10th? It says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", and since the 2nd is part of the Constitution, I would take that to mean that it's status as a law is delegated to the United States by the Constitution, thus removing state (or city) level power over the issue.

 

[OCGuy]

This should once and for all squash the local gun-grabbers. :thumbsup:

 

[spidey07]

Reading more about this case the impact could be huge. Much bigger than the Heller case. The point specop brought up about incorporation is really important.