@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:Thanks for sharing your opinion. Do you really believe that to be an issue of mine, or are you just trying to be cute?
I really have no idea if insecurity is an issue of yours. I just think that it's a really dumb way to argue.
Quote:Being secure in oneself' doesn't have anything to do with penis size, but with confidence.
That was a reference to kicky's dumb comment about penis size.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Being secure in oneself' doesn't have anything to do with penis size, but with confidence.
Cycloptichorn
We know that,
but
YOU and your friends, like Kickycan, year after year,
decade after decade,
INSIST upon calling "penis size" into question,
and u have posted on this thread
that "It's not a pretense;
that's what we honestly believe about you guys."
How do u reconcile those 2 directly conflicting assertions, Cyclo?
David
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:oralloy wrote:joefromchicago wrote:In a constitutional republic, the legislature acts as the fact-finder on behalf of the people. The legislative branch, therefore, is accorded wide latitude in determining whether a particular regulation is desirable or not desirable.
Not when it comes to questions of whether a law violates a fundamental right.
That's true, but again, as I pointed out before, the
Heller decision left open the possibility of legislatures regulating gun ownership even under the second amendment.
It is always possible to have some regulations surrounding a fundamental right -- for instance the famous example of Freedom of Speech vs yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
joefromchicago wrote:The Chicago case will likely define the contours of that permissible regulation.
I think the contours are already defined: the same "strict scrutiny" standard that is used in judging every fundamental right.
What it comes down to is:
what will Justice Kennedy decide ?
However, I believe that he has already said that the right
to bear arms belongs to all Americans. Presumably, he did not mean the right
to carry them from your kitchen into your bathroom, in case u r attacked on the way.
There is also the matter of concealed carry.
Some jurisdictions require only that any guns worn show openly.
In my jurisdiction, the law is that if u have a license to carry,
u MUST carry concealed, unless u r wearing some uniform.
Open carry can negate the right to carry the gun, as a practical matter,
depending on how u r dressed. If u wear a business suit,
with a coat below the knee, then exposure of the gun
is impractical, PARTICULARLY in inclement weather of rain or snow.
U 'd probably need a Sam Browne belt to keep it from falling.
Indeed, in an emergency, drawing a rain covered gun or snow covered gun
can cost u your life, insofar as functionality is concerned.
There is also the anti-discrimination aspect
of the equal protection of the laws.
Neither Leona Helmsley nor Martha Stewart
can constitutionally be required to expose themselves
to the chances of robbery and/or murder.
Thay have as much constituional right
to defend their lives as anyone else.
David
Does anyone know
which Justice wrote the question presented ?
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:joefromchicago wrote:The Chicago case will likely define the contours of that permissible regulation.
I think the contours are already defined: the same "strict scrutiny" standard that is used in judging every fundamental right.
That's not the contours of the right, that's the standard for determining the contours of the right.
If the USSC incorporates the 2A by means of the privileges or immunities clause,
then it can declare the rights of keeping and bearing arms to be immunities;
i.e., every American citizen is immune from gun control laws,
the same way that government has no jurisdiction to make u go to Church if u don 't wanna.
Its up to Justice Kennedy.
Justice Kennedy has already said
the right to bear arms is a right of all Americans
In Heller, Scalia made it pretty clear that gun control is constitutional. I think that if he thought this applied only to federal gun control, he would have said so.
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
In Heller, Scalia made it pretty clear that gun control is constitutional.
I think that if he thought this applied only to federal gun control, he would have said so.
No, because
that question was not before the court.
Anything that he said about other schemes of gun control
was
obiter dicta, except only insofar as the specific ordinance of D.C. was concerned.
Nothing else had been argued by either side,
nor had any evidence been offered nor received.
David
One of the options that remains in front of the Court
is to declare that every American citizen is immune from gun control schemes
(e.g., registration -- the same way that we don 't register to be Christians nor to read newspapers).
This need not necessarily be accomplished in the very next decision.
It can evolve as did freedom of speech.
I have attended pro-freedom gun strategy meetings
wherein the example of the blacks was cited
as to gradual evolution of applicable jurisprudence.
The choice was made to proceed on an incremental basis.
The KEY consideration was to establish the fundamental principles.
We succeeded in that. Freedom thrives.
David
I am very encouraged (dare I say THRILLED?) that the USSC
is showing interest in the privileges or immunities clause.
David
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:oralloy wrote:joefromchicago wrote:The Chicago case will likely define the contours of that permissible regulation.
I think the contours are already defined: the same "strict scrutiny" standard that is used in judging every fundamental right.
That's not the contours of the right, that's the standard for determining the contours of the right.
Gura crafted the Chicago lawsuit to mimic the circumstances of the Heller lawsuit as much as humanly possible (suing to keep a handgun in the home within city limits). That way the focus would be solely on incorporation, since the court already ruled in Heller that a handgun in the home is covered.
Of course, if the court decides to go out of their way to define the contours of the right, there is nothing to stop them. But Gura is not going to willingly give them a ready avenue to bring that topic up this round.
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:In Heller, Scalia made it pretty clear that gun control is constitutional.
Only if said gun control meets the standard of strict scrutiny.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Advocate wrote:In Heller, Scalia made it pretty clear that gun control is constitutional.
Only if said gun control meets the standard of strict scrutiny.
Anything that was said about gun control was
obiter dicta,
except insofar as it concerned possession of handguns in a citizen's home.
That was the only question before the Court.
David
We start therefore with a strong presumption that
the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ...
and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search,
the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments
that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not
in existence at the time of the founding.
Putting all of these textual elements together,
we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess
and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries
(by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker)
made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right,
Americans understood the “right of self-preservation”
as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when
“the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”
1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145"146, n. 42 (1803)
(hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone).
See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence
of the United States 31"32 (1833).
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history,
that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.
With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation
a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also
said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States
and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.
As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.
The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly
chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.
[emphasis added by David] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)
@OmSigDAVID,
While Scalia's mention of gun control is dicta, it gives a clear indication that he thinks gun control is constitutional. I don't think this is a strict scrutiny issue.
