9
   

Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

 
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Mon 23 Jun, 2008 11:19 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
This is a good sign for our gun rights on a federal level, but Scalia has long been a big opponent of extending our gun rights to state and local governments. I hope he doesn't write the opinion in a manner that undercuts any attempt to get the Second Amendment incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The question of incorporation is not before the Court.


Yet.

Chicago is next.

I just hope that Scalia doesn't write the ruling in a manner that undercuts incorporation when we sue Chicago.

I believe that is extremely unlikely.
How reliable is the rumor that HE will write it ?


I wouldn't say it was a definite guarantee. But I'd say pretty reliable.



OmSigDAVID wrote:
SCOTUS BLOG thinks that Kennedy will write it.


Not anymore. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Mon 23 Jun, 2008 11:26 pm
parados wrote:
Quote:
HOWEVER,
if the USSC finds that every citizen has the right to KABA
and that this is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, then that will apply
to curtail the state governments.


The court has no reason to rule in such a broad manner since they can deal with the issue as a federally controlled area. Kennedy isn't about to sign unto a ruling that makes such a broad assessment. The ruling, no matter which way it goes will be restricted and not address "fundamental rights" of KABA.


I can see that they aren't going to go for Fourteenth Amendment incorporation this round, but they are almost certainly going to address the question of fundamental rights on a federal level.

I'm just concerned that Scalia will write the ruling in a way that undercuts the lawsuit against Chicago.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jun, 2008 03:48 am
oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
Quote:
HOWEVER,
if the USSC finds that every citizen has the right to KABA
and that this is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, then that will apply
to curtail the state governments.


The court has no reason to rule in such a broad manner since they can deal with the issue as a federally controlled area. Kennedy isn't about to sign unto a ruling that makes such a broad assessment. The ruling, no matter which way it goes will be restricted and not address "fundamental rights" of KABA.


I can see that they aren't going to go for Fourteenth Amendment incorporation this round,
but they are almost certainly going to address the question of fundamental rights on a federal level.

I'm just concerned that Scalia will write the ruling in a way that undercuts the lawsuit against Chicago.

Has Justice Scalia said something that indicates antipathy to applying
the Second Amendment to limit state government jd ?

On its face, the 2A is a universal negative proposition.
The USSC has expressed doubts as to the legitimacy
of its holding in the Slaughterhouse Cases.




David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jun, 2008 04:03 am
oralloy wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
This is a good sign for our gun rights on a federal level, but Scalia has long been a big opponent of extending our gun rights to state and local governments. I hope he doesn't write the opinion in a manner that undercuts any attempt to get the Second Amendment incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The question of incorporation is not before the Court.


Yet.

Chicago is next.

I just hope that Scalia doesn't write the ruling in a manner that undercuts incorporation when we sue Chicago.

I believe that is extremely unlikely.
How reliable is the rumor that HE will write it ?


I wouldn't say it was a definite guarantee. But I'd say pretty reliable.



OmSigDAVID wrote:
SCOTUS BLOG thinks that Kennedy will write it.


Not anymore. Very Happy

Having consulted SCOTUSBLOG,
I see that u r correct:
" It does look exceptionally likely that Justice Scalia is writing the
principal opinion for the Court in Heller - the D.C. guns case.
That is the only opinion remaining from the sitting and he is the only
member of the Court not to have written a majority opinion from the sitting.
There is no indication that he lost a majority from March.
... So, that's a good sign for advocates of a strong individual rights
conception of the Second Amendment and a bad sign for D.C."
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jun, 2008 12:43 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Has Justice Scalia said something that indicates antipathy to applying the Second Amendment to limit state government jd ?


Yes. At the time though he was considering the Second Amendment as only having the militia-related right, and was not addressing the personal defense right.

He has said unambiguously that the militia-related right is federal-only.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jun, 2008 01:56 pm
oralloy wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Has Justice Scalia said something that indicates antipathy
to applying the Second Amendment to limit state government jd ?


Yes. At the time though he was considering the Second Amendment
as only having the militia-related right,
and was not addressing the personal defense right.

He has said unambiguously that the militia-related right is federal-only.

Thank u, Oralloy.
THAT 'S A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.
U sound like a very good lawyer, to me !




David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jun, 2008 02:00 pm
Inasmuch as I am much too old, fat and ugly
to join militia, that will remain a moot point, for me.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 09:10 am
The Supreme Court has announced that the Heller decision will be delivered Thursday June 26 at 10:00 AM (eastern time)
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Thu 26 Jun, 2008 05:13 am
This page (requires Java) will relay a live (text) report from the Supreme Court as it hands down the Heller ruling -- including a timely link to the ruling itself.

http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?option=com_altcaster&task=siteviewaltcast&altcast_code=39aaa9e4d2

The website's reporting goes live just before 10 AM eastern time.

The Supreme Court begins giving the morning's rulings at 10:00 AM eastern time.

The Java applet updates the reporting automatically -- no need to refresh browsers.

Cool
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Thu 26 Jun, 2008 08:16 am
Yesss! But the devil is in the details.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Thu 26 Jun, 2008 09:00 pm
Fourteenth Amendment incorporation here we come! Gura sues Chicago!


Quote:
"plaintiffs include Chicago residents Otis McDonald, a retiree who has been working with police to rid his neighborhood of drug dealers, and who wants to have a handgun at his home; Adam Orlov, a former Evanston police officer; software engineer David Lawson and his wife, Colleen, a hypnotherapist, whose home has been targeted by burglars. Attorney Alan Gura, who argued the District of Columbia challenge before the high court, and Chicago area attorney David G. Sigale, represent the plaintiffs.

"Our goal," Gura said "is to require state and local officials to respect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Chicago's handgun ban, and some of its gun registration requirements, are clearly unconstitutional.""


http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/saf_files_lawsuit_challenging_chicago_s_handgun_ban


Link to complaint (PDF): http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/complaint.pdf
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Fri 27 Jun, 2008 05:40 am
I hope this is the beginning of the end of the crime that is Chicago and it's politics. Daley, eat **** and die.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jun, 2008 08:43 am
In my vu,
yesterday 's USSC decision was very friendly to freedom of personal defense
(and of defense of property).

It portends well to restore the status quo ante



David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 09:12 pm
Heads up! The UN is dusting off their gun ban treaty in anticipation of an Obama win.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ib61fXeOYpOjGPiCae89ehNNsZUA
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Sun 2 Nov, 2008 06:36 pm
The UN's latest guide to how they'd like the government to violate our rights is quite instructive:

http://www.undp.org/cpr/documents/sa_control/SALWGuide_Legislation.pdf

(Note Chapter 3 in particular.)



One interesting tidbit:

Quote:
Licence applicants may be required to provide a good reason, justifying why they need to possess a firearm. Legislation may prescribe the circumstances under which possession of a firearm may be justified.

If ‘personal protection’ is permitted as a good reason, applicants should prove to the police that they are in genuine danger that could be avoided by being armed.


There is a lot more like that in Chapter 3.....
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Fri 16 Jan, 2009 08:06 pm
Appeals court heard arguments for Nordyke v. King yesterday.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King


The judges were extremely favorable towards the idea of applying the Second Amendment to state and local governments.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Fri 16 Jan, 2009 08:08 pm
@oralloy,



Excellent news!!
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Fri 16 Jan, 2009 08:29 pm
Yes, good news indeed.
JTT
 
  -1  
Fri 16 Jan, 2009 08:40 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
The judges were extremely favorable towards the idea of applying the Second Amendment to state and local governments.


Them fuckin' judges ... trying to legislate from the bench.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sat 17 Jan, 2009 02:16 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Yes, good news indeed.

Let 's hope that the county will appeal to the USSC.





DAVID
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2024 at 06:04:59