Supreme Court to Decide Second Amendment Incorporation

As dependable as the swallows returning to Capistrano, oralloy returns to A2K every time the supreme court takes a second amendment case.

epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

What Penn researchers found was alarming " almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.

As dependable as the swallows returning to Capistrano, oralloy returns to A2K every time the supreme court takes a second amendment case.

Do we know which Justice wrote the question presented ?





David

epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.

After we secure incorporation, then we can expand the boundaries of the Constitutional protections to include the right to have semi-auto assault weapons.

And then we can expand the boundaries of the Constitutional protections to include the right to carry concealed handguns.

Then we'll all finally be free!

I wonder if this is what slaves felt like during the Civil War when Union armies were marching in to free them.....

oralloy wrote:

After we secure incorporation, then we can expand the boundaries of the Constitutional protections to include the right to have semi-auto assault weapons.

And then we can expand the boundaries of the Constitutional protections to include the right to carry concealed handguns.

Why would incorporation bring that about?

After all, even Scalia acknowledged in Heller that DC could still enact reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and usage. Why would a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and concealed carry necessarily be contrary to the second amendment?

Strict scrutiny.

There is no compelling government interest in banning a pistol grip on a rifle.

All an assault weapon really is, is a regular gun with cosmetic features like pistol grips.

Even if someone made a case that there was a compelling interest in prohibiting large ammo magazines (a case I'd personally be highly skeptical of), the fact that assault weapons laws also ban cosmetic features like pistol grips means that the laws aren't narrowly tailored.

Here come the anecdotes, denial, and rationalizations....

DrewDad wrote:

Here come the anecdotes, denial, and rationalizations....

Why not call it what it is: verbally and metaphorically stroking their penises for reassurance.

Cycloptichorn