Supreme Court and Gun Regulation

[Sweetwater]

The Supreme Court has voted to limit the ability of local jurisdictions to ban the private ownership and possession of handguns. This basically means that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed our Second Amendment rights.

I will be interested to see if and how this ruling impacts Massachusetts handgun laws. Even though MA does not ban handguns (as they do in the city of Chicago), licensing is fully at the sole discretion of the local police chief. What this amounts to is unequal application of the law since if you have two equally qualified individuals one might be granted a license and the other not simply due to the town they live in and the disposition of local law enforcement.

I wonder if this ruling can be used as a precedent to outlaw such an arbitrary process and put a more equal application of the law in place for law-abiding MA citizens.

[spence]

Not sure. These rulings seem to indicate that states and cities can certainly uphold limitations on firearms, but can't ban them completely.

I'd note that they didn't end the Chicago ban, but told the lower court to revisit their earlier decision. How this ultimately gets implemented is still in question, but the message was clear none the less.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Paul, we were talking about this exact thing at the office. It seems like the USSC has definitely helped reaffirm our Second Amendment rights, but a lot of the details are left open.

What came to mind for me is the former police chief of Quincy and his hard stance against residents owning handguns.

I'm right there with you - curious to see if/how this pans out, but in a liberal state like MA, I'm not holding my breath.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Paul
It seems like the USSC has definitely helped reaffirm our Second Amendment rights, but a lot of the details are left open.


.

actually, 5-4 ....some on the court reaffirmed the Second Amendment and some others made it plain that they have little regard for it and I'm sure the rest of the Constitution and it's other Ammendments...the Kelo decision also comes to mind ...now....would you care to guess which were which? Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. ...... and will Obama once again berate the Supremes publically?, afterall the majority "stupidly" disagreed with his brilliant appointee ?

another Obama bud..."Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says he's disappointed by Monday's Supreme Court decision that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live."

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

actually, 5-4 ....some on the court reaffirmed the Second Amendment and some others made it plain that they have little regard for it and I'm sure the rest of the Constitution and it's other Ammendments...the Kelo decision also comes to mind ...now....would you care to guess which were which? Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. ...... and will Obama once again berate the Supremes publically?, afterall the majority "stupidly" disagreed with his brilliant appointee ?

another Obama bud..."Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says he's disappointed by Monday's Supreme Court decision that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live."

So your answer to my question from the other thread:

It really is impossible for you to not turn every single post into something about Obama huh?

is yes.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

So your answer to my question from the other thread:
is yes.

the people that you abhor idealogically for the most part just "definitely helped reaffirm our(your) Second Amendment rights"...the people that you seem to lean toward politically don't give a rat's ass about your second amendment rights, it's a little contradictory...that's all I'm sayin'...and there's another one of Your People in the confirmation process currently who would side with the minority in this case nominated by the guy that you voted for....it's all related to OBAMA AT THE MOMENT

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

the people that you abhor idealogically for the most part just "definitely helped reaffirm our(your) Second Amendment rights"...the people that you seem to lean toward politically don't give a rat's ass about your second amendment rights, it's a little contradictory...that's all I'm sayin'...and there's another one of Your People in the confirmation process currently who would side with the minority in this case nominated by the guy that you voted for....it's all related to OBAMA AT THE MOMENT

How little of a clue you have about my political philosophy is very apparent. However, I'm not going to high-jack Sweetwater's thread and get into yet another pissing match instigated by you.

On topic, after reading more about this ruling, I think the effects will be widespread. Chicago is already looking to put similar restrictions in place like DC did after it's ban was lifted, like banning all handguns that can own a clip and making applicants jump through major hoops and spend a lot of dough in order to get their license.

Striking down the DC and now the Chicago bans are the Constitutionally correct choices.

[spence]

Those were classics...

And we all know you took some without the trench...come on, let's have it

-spence

[MotoXcowboy]

I put these up before? I don't remember....

nah.. no pics w/o the trench

I got a few new guns maybe I'll have her model them soon

[JohnnyD]

The right to bear arms is clear and articulate. The Constitutionality of abortion is not. I should have stated that it's application requires interpretation... never said anything about interpretations should be"based on personal whim, political orientation, views of 'social justice'".

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The right to bear arms is clear and articulate.apparently it is not for 4 current Supreme Court Justices and Mayor Daley The Constitutionality of abortion is not. actually it is, unless you engage in a radical interpretation of life "based on personal whim, political orientation, views of 'social justice'" I should have stated that it's application requires interpretation... never said anything about interpretations should be"based on personal whim, political orientation, views of 'social justice'".

Judicial interpretation is a theory or mode of thought that explains("progressives") how the judiciary should interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents and legislation (see statutory interpretation). An interpretation which results in or supports some form of law-making role for the judiciary in interpreting the law is sometimes pejoratively characterized as judicial activism, the opposite of which is judicial lethargy, with judicial restraint somewhere in between.

I added "progressives" JD...you are simply repeating progressive doctorine with regard to the "interpretation' of the Constitution...which allows "Change" you can believe in?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

[I added "progressives" JD...you are simply repeating progressive doctorine with regard to the "interpretation' of the Constitution...which allows "Change" you can believe in?

I'm proud that you were able to to make a post without mentioning Obama. Unfortunately, you're still unable to refrain from conflating topics.

Since you already present nonsense "facts" in the same way, here's something you may be interested in... Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Announcing Beck University I don't think the chalk board with pictures of Stalin, Hitler and Swastikas is included though.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

conflating topics.

you shouldn't use words that you don't understand

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

you shouldn't use words that you don't understand

Conflate: verb - To bring things together and fuse them into a single entity

"Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, become confused until there seems to be only a single identity — the differences appear to become lost"

Considering how you take any topic you may disagree with and somehow blend it in with progressives, socialism or Obama regardless of the topic's origin... seems pretty accurate.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The right to bear arms is clear and articulate.

Is it? Please define "arms" then. Slingshot? RPG?

I'd think we could all agree that an individual doesn't need a nuclear weapon to protect themselves from assault or government abuse.

The Second Amendment in particular was drafted at a time where states rights were shifting to the federal government. The language of these statutes weren't born from a golden goose, they were hashed out by people trying to draft rules to guide a country given the challenges of the moment.

If the job of a judge is to determine if a law passed constitutional muster, one can only assume that they must first try to understand constitutional intent, which isn't always so clear. The arguments over "cruel and unusual punishment" during the Bush years are evidence enough...

I'm all for a balanced court as it will more times than not come to the correct conclusion.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Is it? Please define "arms" then. Slingshot? RPG?

I'd think we could all agree that an individual doesn't need a nuclear weapon to protect themselves from assault or government abuse.

Yes, it is. While the scope of this Right is widely disputed (such as the assault rifle debates), it is my belief that the Second Amendment grants citizens the right to own a firearm for personal protection and any overly intrusive regulations on that right, such as a handgun ban, is Unconstitutional.

As you said, Constitutional intent. In this case, the intent is clear.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Is it? Please define "arms" then. Slingshot? RPG?

The two appendages that hang from the shoulders and onto which the hands are attached.

Actually, it was clear that the framers meant weapons, including weapons of war. Though there were much larger weapons than various rifles and sidearms (cannons, gunboats, battleships, etc.,) there was no need to define what was protected as a right to own. If you could afford a battleship and had a place to keep it, it was your right. Now, local ordinances might interfere, not with your right to own an Abrams tank, but on what roads it would be allowed. If you can afford a hydrogen bomb and want to waste your money thusly, go for it. Again, there may be problems with hazardous material handling and storage. This nonsense that if you allow law abiding citizens to own nefarious and powerful weapons, chaos, anarchy, uncontrollabe mass murders and havoc will burst the seams of society is an insult to the people.

I'd think we could all agree that an individual doesn't need a nuclear weapon to protect themselves from assault or government abuse.

Not knowing what might be needed, it was probably better not to specify.

The Second Amendment in particular was drafted at a time where states rights were shifting to the federal government. The language of these statutes weren't born from a golden goose, they were hashed out by people trying to draft rules to guide a country given the challenges of the moment.

Wow! Halfway into George Washington's first term as POTUS and rights were already "shifting to the federal government"? I guess that's why the Fed. Gov. has been able to grab so much power from the People--it had a huge head start.

Actually, wasn't the Constitution and its first ammendments a prohibition AGAINST the Federal Government--Those pesky negative rights that Obama complains about?

If the job of a judge is to determine if a law passed constitutional muster, one can only assume that they must first try to understand constitutional intent, which isn't always so clear. The arguments over "cruel and unusual punishment" during the Bush years are evidence enough...

For the most part, when "intent" is not clear, it is so due to a contending party trying to find a supposed lack of clarity and hidden intent so as to win an argument (approve Federal legislation, deny certain inalieanable rights, etc.) Arguing over whether a punishment is cruel or unusual (as if punishments are somehow other than cruel) in a Constitutional context is obviously and intentionally shadowy. There is obviously NO INTENT to specify. It is obviously left to the people to decide what is cruel and unusual. It should also be obvious that if it is so arguable as to cause such difficulty to decide, that the punishments are probably not cruel or unusual, but just distasteful to some, and a political tool for others.

I'm all for a balanced court as it will more times than not come to the correct conclusion.

-spence

Since there are 9 members, it cannot be mathematically balanced. What matters is not a balance between two opposing views (there can certainly be more than two, there could possibly be nine,) but that Constitutional decisions are made within the bounds of the Constitution, not by various penumbras and emanations that one might personally wish existed for what one feels is the betterment of society.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The right to bear arms is clear and articulate. The Constitutionality of abortion is not. I should have stated that it's application requires interpretation... never said anything about interpretations should be"based on personal whim, political orientation, views of 'social justice'".

You said "I think the public hanging of child rapists and murderers would be Constitutionally acceptable and not conflict with the restriction of "cruel and unusual punishment". Others may disagree and perceive it as unconstitutional." This implies a Constitutional lack of clarity because it promotes "interpretation" based on personal opinion. Actually, the right to bear arms, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the "right" to an abortion should not require wrenching, conflicting, "interpretation."

There is no restriction in the Constitution on the types of "arms" that a citizen has a right to bear.

Since there is no definition of what is cruel or unusual in the Constitution, such punishments are left to be determined by the people and their legislators in accordence with normative standards and practices.

There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. Again, this "right" should be reserved to State legislatures bringing the matter up to a vote of their citizens. There is, of course, a matter of a human right to life. Apparently, it is difficult to determine whether a human is alive, or even human, until it is separated from the umbilical cord. Even then, living, viable newborns that result from failed late term abortions are discarded into trash heaps, apparently not considered human or alive.