48Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksNo sir there hasn't, you are correct in that the SCOTUS has refused to hear ANY cases on carry.Originally Posted by livewire9880
This is a discussion on Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by livewire9880 I would like to point something out here. There seems to be a misconception that the SCOTUS has ruled that carry ...
Array
No sir there hasn't, you are correct in that the SCOTUS has refused to hear ANY cases on carry.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Clearly, SCOTUS is upholding some state prohibitions and has yet to rule on, for example, whether the 14th amendment applies to states to limit their power to prohibit the right to bear as the court ruled it does to limit their power to prohibit the right to keep.
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
Wait... What?
Edit: I changed my mind... I don't understand the rest of your post either.
Last edited by livewire; March 14th, 2012 at 04:44 PM. Reason: huh?
There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
-- John F. Kennedy
No, it is not alright for anyone, and if Couric did that it wasn't right. We have a huge problem in this country with
hyperbolic irrational distorted misleading untrue crap passing for political discourse. When it crosses the line to
libel it should be treated as such--- as in our distant past. The key features of libel and slander being that
the statement is untrue (truth is a defense); malicious; and made to discredit the honor of someone. It isn't hard
to discern what is libel and what is just talk. And it isn't hard to tell the difference between an exaggeration for effect
and a bald faced lie.
Dueling, though illegal, was a popular way of settling some of these matters during the first few decades of our
life as a nation. We once got to witness the bizarre incident of a Vice President presiding over The Senate while under
indictment for murder. It was his only safe place.
Let's ratchet the inflated language back across the board, and seriously, either the courts need to tighten up on the
public figure exemption to civil liability for slander and libel, or we need to reinstate the Sedition Act, because what we are doing to ourselves now stinks.
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
John Adams. Second President of the United States.
I mean Heller upholds state prohibitions on selling to felons and carrying on school grounds.... Heller and McDonald apply the 14th amendment to DC and states in the case of owning (keeping) arms - effectively limiting states' power to ban ownership. SCOTUS has yet to hear a carry case but will hopefully rule that the 14th amendment applies to states in the case of carrying arms.
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
Okay, I understood that one :)
I would expect that SCOTUS would rule at the state and interstate level as to mandating that states have shall-issue permits or permit-less carry, but will leave the actual prohibited locations and other technicalities up to the states themselves.
There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
-- John F. Kennedy
So, let's see. Is there a practical effect of such a refusal? Consider the death penalty appeal. Refusing to
hear the case is the same as ruling against the convict and assures his rapid demise.
Not taking a case is a type of decision too.
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
John Adams. Second President of the United States.
I disagree... it's more of a "Leave us alone and go figure it out yourselves", much like a child pleading for parental intervention in an argument. SCOTUS only rules in cases when it wants to create permanence, where it will ignore cases that would create a precedent they aren't ready to create.
Last edited by livewire; March 14th, 2012 at 04:59 PM. Reason: Punctuation FAIL
There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
-- John F. Kennedy
I expect something of the sort but was wrong once before ;) I hope that the states draw the line on what municipalities, etc., may prohibit.
Interestingly, it stands, however, that on the 1897 Robertson case SCOTUS "commented that state laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment."
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
Having not read the case you're quoting.... was that a comment or part of the actual opinion? What was the case regarding?
There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
-- John F. Kennedy
Array
Or could it be much more sinister than that. Are they trying to hold off hearing anymore Second Amendment cases, in hopes of getting one more "new" Justice? Knowing full well they could turn the tide against the 2A.
Make no mistake, the administration in power now is anti-gun and vehemently so.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
that's... scary, and a little plausible.
There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
-- John F. Kennedy
Array
Why would "they" do that? it is already a 5-4 majority. If "they" wanted to "they" could have not made the rulings "they" made on McDonald and heller.
If four justices agree that a specific petition for writ of certiorari should be granted, then the case will be placed on the Supreme Court's docket and an order stating that certiorari has been granted will be issued to the petitioner.
Soooo the 5 who are for gun rights could just decide to hear the case..... the 4 anti-s have nothing to do with it. If "they" whoever "they" is wanted to, "they" could have shot heller down like a dirigible. So "they" does not exist.......
I think the conspiracy theories and tinfoil are way too deep for this one
It's an Obiter dictum from Robertson v. Baldwin. The case regards seamens' contractural committment with their ship masters vs apprehension for involuntary servitude. The ensuing comment is sandwiched between disparate rights
The comment did two things. On one hand, it broached unstated exceptions to rights guaranteed. On the other, it referenced the Second Amendment right as applicable to an individual (vs militia or state).Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (Art. V) does not prevent a second trial if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion...
At least one case is in the pipeline, also running here.
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
Array
I apologize sir, I just do not want to argue something that we do not have any control over. I was not rebutting or arguing anything, just pointing out printed, documented, legal facts as it pertains to concealed carry and the states rights to restrict it over the federal governments right to regulate it. So that you may further educate yourself on the subject and come to your own conclusions.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
