Found this interesting. Thoughts?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100302/...eme_court_guns
Printable View
Found this interesting. Thoughts?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100302/...eme_court_guns
For those of you who are able to get podcasts... you can get them here or just read up...
SCOTUSblog
Analysis: 2d Amendment extension likely
Lyle Denniston | Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010 11:26 am
Analysis
The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.
When the Justices cast their first vote after starting later this week to discuss where to go from here, it appeared that the focus of debate will be how extensive a “right to keep and bear arms” should be spelled out: would it be only some “core right” to have a gun for personal safety, or would it include every variation of that right that could emerge in the future as courts decide specific cases? The liberal wing of the Court appeared to be making a determined effort to hold the expanded Amendment in check, but even the conservatives open to applying the Second Amendment to states, counties and cities seemed ready to concede some — but perhaps fewer — limitations.
Rest of the story:
Relocate to Legislation and Politics?
VERYGREAT news indeed!
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...e=politicsNews
They are talking about it on NPR, but I haven't been listening as closely as I need/want to. I don't like some of what I've been hearing though.
I fully expect their final decision will be so vague and watered down, like the Heller decision, as to make the entire effort a waste.
not sure how i want to see this go. i like the idea of states being able to decide so MT and TN should have their new laws not affected by the batfe but then we will have to fight on two fronts...state and federal level at a greater extent than we do now. i havent got to read the links or articles since i am on my phone so i may chage my mind here!
That is a totally different issue, you want this to go against the state, trust me.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Sorry Ginsue, I totally disagree with your read on the Heller decision. It quantifiably standardized the right to bear arms as an individual right. This also puts the burden on the governing authority to justify why they want to infringe on that right vs the individual having to re-assert their right. This is a pillar ruling. It doesn't look all pretty like paintings on the wall, but without the pillar, there isn't any wall to have. The vagueness was because the didn't want to try to cut throught the field of gun laws out there with a sickle. They wanted to leave it open and let the courts decide where the right of the individual ends and the needs of the society begin. To do this, they wanted the courts to individually address the various laws. It's a surgical approach to roughly 75 years of lack of guidance on this right.Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
I suspect they will re-edify their stance on the Heller ruling and give some clarification to where they won't tolerate the individual's rights being infringed. Then they will back up and let the surgury continue.
The Supreme Court has taken this approach before. The latest bout of decisions like this stemmed from the 4th ammendment and people's vehicles is a pretty good example. Kennedy coined the phrase "baggage along the way" for this type of approach in the Heller decision. It helps stop the pendelum swinging too far to one side of individual right or social order. It takes longer, but has a more stable impact on the society as a whole.