NRA

[ReelinRod]

I believe that the test to determine what a "fundamental right" is, is well established and now that fundamental status has been declared for the right to arms for self defense it can't be undone.

That all that judicial invention of standard of scrutiny exists, (along with selective incorporation), is why many people were so excited when SCOTUS granted cert to McDonald v Chicago and not NRA v Chicago (although they were joined later).

Conservatives and Liberals hoped that McDonald's primary argument that the right to arms is enforceable on the states by way of the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause, meant the Court would revisit Slaughterhouse.

Slaughterhouse gutted the "privileges or immunities" clause which only left "due process' as the vehicle to apply the Bill of Rights to the states under the 14th Amendment. This also left unenumerated rights out in the cold, hence the "invention" of prenumbral rights including the right to privacy / Roe v Wade.

"Due process" demands a case by case, fact by fact inspection which of course leaves politically agenda driven judges and Justices plenty of parchment to add to the Constitution.

Thomas' concurrence in McDonald is a history lesson and an explanation and indictment of the "legal fiction" described above.

Thomas's concurrence is a blueprint of where we should be and I recommend everyone read it.

Liberals would be happy because the unenumerated rights they embrace would be secure without questionable reasoning and conservatives (at least those who cherish the Constitution, as opposed to "social' and "cultural" conservatives) would be happy because the Constitution would finally be enforced.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

I believe that the test to determine what a "fundamental right" is, is well established and now that fundamental status has been declared for the right to arms for self defense it can't be undone.

It is telling that we have to "test" to determine what are fundamental rights. Would that "great residuum of everythng not conferred to government" be comprised of fundamental rights? Isn't that why the Federalists didn't want to create a Bill of Rights? And isn't what they warned against that which has happened? Haven't the Bill of Rights implied exceptions to powers not granted and afforded colorable pretext for the Federal Gvt. to claim more rights than were granted to it. And by doing so, has not that Federal Gvt. suppressed, usurped, or gained power over the vast residuum of individual rights, leaving only a violation of the Bill of Rights worthy of "Strict Scrutiny?"

And aren't even those rights in The Bill of Rights under assault?:

First Ammendment: Contraceptive insurance required even by certain religious orgs. The rather newly "found" Doctrine of Government Speech that can override individual speech.

2nd: The constant attempts by the Federal Gvt. to regulate, restrict, or ban arms.

4th: The Patriot Act.

5th: Kelo v. New London.

9th and 10th: Progressive judicial "interpretation" especially from FDR Court to the present have allowed the Federal Gvt. to wrest powers beyond the enumerated powers or have twisted the meaning of clauses which has debilitated or denied much of that "greate residuum" of rights that were to be retained by the people.

Thomas's concurrence is a blueprint of where we should be and I recommend everyone read it.

I followed your advice and did read it. I agree. Thomas is my favorite SCOTUS Judge. I think he is more faithful to the Constitution even than Scalia.

But Heller and McDonald were both 5 to 4 decisions. Kagan and Sotomayor didn't even bother to write a dissent in McDonald. I think that elections DO matter, and "fundamental rights" can be restricted or denied depending on who legislates and which judges have been appointed by those elected. Thomas and Scalia may not be sitting on the Court in the near future, and if progressive judges take their place, the assault on individual, "fundamental" rights will continue. And even if the Second Ammendment is now unassailable, which I don't think is true, given how that "great residuum" of rights has been gutted or put under the largesse of government, what use would the 2nd be if all others were taken? Are we worthy, as a people, of the Second Ammendment? Would we, under duress of losing our rights, actually put that Ammendment to the use for which it was ultimately intended?

I don't think so.

[TheSpecialist]

Looks like the Dems may not have enough votes to pass the ban... Some Dems are bailing because they know this will do nothing...

[spence]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Looks like the Dems may not have enough votes to pass the ban... Some Dems are bailing because they know this will do nothing...

I think the real goal is to toughen up background checks more than anything else. There shouldn't be much opposition to closing the gun show loopholes etc...

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the real goal is to toughen up background checks more than anything else. There shouldn't be much opposition to closing the gun show loopholes etc...

-spence

I thought the "real goal" was to stop the kind of recent violence that has prompted the latest call for action, how would what you mention as the "real goal" have stopped that violence? And if it wouldn't, how can we believe anything that you state? Pretty shameless and offensive if your "real goal" has nothing to do with your stated motivation, particularly when it involves little children....makes you really wonder about the "real goal" and "real motivation"

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I thought the "real goal" was to stop the kind of recent violence that has prompted the latest call for action, how would what you mention as the "real goal" have stopped that violence? And if it wouldn't, how can we believe anything that you state? Pretty shameless and offensive if your "real goal" has nothing to do with your stated motivation, particularly when it involves little children....makes you really wonder about the "real goal" and "real motivation"

Real goal as in what they think they can accomplish. I think large cap mags they could probably get passed also. The full Feinstein proposal will be more challenging.

You did sound so passionate and genuine though. Thanks for caring.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Real goal as in what they think they can accomplish. I think large cap mags they could probably get passed also. The full Feinstein proposal will be more challenging.

You did sound so passionate and genuine though. Thanks for caring.

-spence

you've really got your sneer on today...

add large cap mags to the list(tougher background checks and close gun show loopholes) and tell me which of the "real goals as in what they think they can accomplish" would have prevented the incidents that they/you are attempting to build your/their case with?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Real goal as in what they think they can accomplish.

-spence

That implies that there is a larger goal which they do not think they can accomplish now. Perhaps later. After they make incremental "accomplishments" along the way.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the real goal is to toughen up background checks more than anything else. There shouldn't be much opposition to closing the gun show loopholes etc...

-spence

You wont get any argument here, but down south , they will have a problem with that.

Did I tell you that my grandfather was a cobbler?

[spence]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Did I tell you that my grandfather was a cobbler?

-spence