Forums

[mel bradford]

What if the Heller decision was wrong ?

[JimDandy75]

There are a lot of people who think it is. I don't, but I admit I'm biased. Given the number of sources for the framer's intent however I believe they came up with the right ruling. Irregardless, like other controversial decisions it will be law of the land until such time as it may be reversed, or otherwise mooted. As a SCOTUS decision an actual reversal is unlikely, and more likely will some other way of mooting it... a constitutional convention repealing the second is the most straightforward and quickest... but also the unlikeliest. Most likely will be maintenance of the status quo. More laws will be passed, SCOTUS will look at them from time to time as they grant cert, and revise and extend the reach of these various laws in a semi-fluid law of the land.

The more basic answer is, they're the Supreme Court. As far as interpreting the law and checking and balancing the legislative branch, they're never wrong, because they're the final answer leaving them, by definition right. Until they change their mind.

[mel bradford]

...yes until they change their mind...or Congress limits the federal appeals courts.

Heller is simple. Congress has original jurisdiction in Washington DC. The 2nd Amendment does not apply.
The city council, which is under congressional authority, can ban anything they want and not violate the 2nd.
Cross the river and States have to contend with over 20,000 unconstitutional federal gun laws. But States can ban any and all firearms they want and not violate the 2nd.

The 2nd Amendment merely restricts Congress from passing laws restricting gun ownership/ bearing of arms. It was not written to stop states from enacting their own measures. Thanks to the Court the 2nd has been incorporated now on the states. The whole thing is a mess.

Heller imo was wrong for the wrong reason. Just a thought.

[-Alex]

I think you're being intentionally dense.

Not intentional or unintentional, I assure you. He most definitely was referring to "well regulated"

"well regulated" was in quotes, implying a direct quote of the amendment.

Correct.

In the amendment the militia is well regulated, the right to bear arms is what shall not be infringed.

Correct. And he was referring to the "well-regulated" words. Not anything about militia membership.

The Well-Regulated Militia clause was long a go-to argument for people in favor of gun control. It still is by those not up to date with the Heller decision.

You mean for people who stated that you have to be a member of a militia? Right - he didn't do that.

The 2nd Amendment merely restricts Congress from passing laws restricting gun ownership/ bearing of arms. It was not written to stop states from enacting their own measures.

That is what I gathered when reading up. That it was up to the states to regulate their militia, but the Constitution saying the federal government should not infringe upon that right. The fear was that the federal government would disarm the states.

[beenthereanddonethat]

This thread graduated away from the 20 babies who were shot multiple times at school. I would rather we have a grown up discussion which would focus on this never, ever happening again! I am prolife does this not include those already born?

[JimDandy75]

...yes until they change their mind...or Congress limits the federal appeals courts.

Heller is simple. Congress has original jurisdiction in Washington DC. The 2nd Amendment does not apply.
The city council, which is under congressional authority, can ban anything they want and not violate the 2nd.
Cross the river and States have to contend with over 20,000 unconstitutional federal gun laws. But States can ban any and all firearms they want and not violate the 2nd.

The 2nd Amendment merely restricts Congress from passing laws restricting gun ownership/ bearing of arms. It was not written to stop states from enacting their own measures. Thanks to the Court the 2nd has been incorporated now on the states. The whole thing is a mess.

Heller imo was wrong for the wrong reason. Just a thought.

Wow. That's a terrifying thought. Congress limits the federal appeals courts. You don't think that would neuter Checks and Balances just a little? Should we impeach every Justice that rules a law unconstitutional?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the District? Then do any? I'm sitting here looking at the Bill of Rights right now. I don't see any clause saying "Except in the District of Columbia". By your logic the DC police can search EVERYONE and ANY TIME. The Marine Guards at the white house could crash in any home they felt like that night, noone could complain because they have neither free speech, nor the right to redress their grievances with the government. On the bright side, we can fall back on Bolling v. Sharpe to show that laws apply to D.C.

[RugerP95]

Washington State Constitution

Article I - Section 24 - Right to Bear Arms
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

[mel bradford]

All I can say JimDandy 75 is that the seperation of powers is long gone. The B of R was written as a restriction on Central (federal if you will) power. Hamilton was right when he asserted that the Constitution did not need a B of R because it was already inherent in the text and would potentially become what it is today......a federal power. But the anti-federalists wanted in spelled out so we got the 1st ten amendments and every other amendment since has added to federal power....not restricted it.

That said Congress can limit Court reach under sec 8 "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;" this includes appeals courts...and what cases they may take. Further definition in Art 3 defines The Court as having only 3 powers/ responsibilities.

The militia part of amend 2 is qualified in Art 2 under Executive powers. Essentially the militia is the draft or the standing army that the President can use to a) enforce the laws of the United States (Wiskey Rebellion) b) put down insurrection and c) repel invasion. Some what to tie gun ownership to the militia...its a bunch of crap.

more later

[glenstar]

This thread graduated away from the 20 babies who were shot multiple times at school. I would rather we have a grown up discussion which would focus on this never, ever happening again! I am prolife does this not include those already born?

yes, it has, BT. and that is exactly what I was afraid has happened nationwide.

[beenthereanddonethat]

[quote]NEWTOWN, Conn. — Nelba Marquez-Greene put her two children on the school bus on the morning of Dec. 14. Only one came home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/nyreg ... .html?_r=0

These families really don't care about Republicans or Democrats but they are banding together hoping agaist hope their efforts may save some lives. These people actually seem to be using their common sense even through unspeakable grief. Can't you people here at least try to do the same?