tester leads charge for gun rights in another Supreme Court case

Tester leads charge for gun rights in another Supreme Court case

This is a discussion on Tester leads charge for gun rights in another Supreme Court case within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; U.S. Senator Jon Tester Senator urges Court to side with gun rights in McDonald v. Chicago Wednesday, October 7, 2009 (WASHINGTON, D.C.) – Senator Jon ...

Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: tester leads charge for gun rights in another Supreme Court case

  1. #1
    Member Array UnklFungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    441

    tester leads charge for gun rights in another Supreme Court case

    U.S. Senator Jon tester

    Senator urges Court to side with gun rights in McDonald v. Chicago

    Wednesday, October 7, 2009

    (WASHINGTON, D.C.) – Senator Jon tester is again leading the charge in Congress to ensure that all law-abiding Americans have the same rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

    tester today teamed up with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to support gun rights in its upcoming McDonald v. The City of Chicago case.

    The Supreme Court recently agreed to make a decision in McDonald v. Chicago. Justices will determine whether state and local governments have the right to pass their own laws restricting firearms.

    tester and Hutchison are writing a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of gun rights.

    “The Second Amendment guarantees gun rights for all law-abiding Americans, no matter where they live,” said tester, who serves as Vice Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. “I’m glad Republicans and Democrats are working together to tell the Supreme Court we expect it to stand up for our gun rights in this important case.”

    McDonald v. Chicago is similar to another Supreme Court case that tester and Hutchison became involved with. Last year, they wrote a brief asking the Court to strike down Washington, D.C.’s longstanding ban on firearms in the Heller v. The District of Columbia case.

    In the Heller case, the Supreme Court agreed Washington D.C.’s controversial ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment and struck it down on June 28, 2008.

    The McDonald case is broader than the Heller case because it will apply to gun rights in all state and city governments—not just the federal government (The city of Washington, D.C., is part of the federal government).

    Senator Max Baucus plans to join tester in signing the brief for the Supreme Court.

    “Our state’s identity is firmly rooted in our outdoor heritage,” Baucus said. “The Second Amendment is a vital part of our history, our heritage and our future. On behalf of every Montanan, I’m encouraging the Supreme Court to protect this inalienable right for all Montanans and for law-abiding citizens across the country.”

    “This case isn’t about politics or parties,” tester said. “It’s about our Constitution. We were on the right side of the Constitution when the Supreme Court struck down D.C.’s gun ban, and we’re on the right side in McDonald v. Chicago.”

    Earlier this year, tester and Baucus successfully told the U.S. Attorney General to back down from any plans to ban assault weapons. They also got the Pentagon to reverse a controversial decision to not sell used brass casings for ammunition. And they supported a successful law allowing firearms in national parks.
    “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

    Patrick Henry
    Quote Originally Posted by UnklFungus
    If it is ok to disarm legal citizens to reduce crime, then doesn't it stand to disband the military to prevent war?


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array automatic slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The western edge of The Confederacy
    Posts
    2,198
    I just can't make sense out of our current government. Supposedly the Constitution is the law of the land. If a city or state attempted to muzzle the New York Times for example, they would immediately point to the first amendment as their right to speak freely. It too is a federal law, but no one says we have to go to SCOTUS to affirm our right to speak freely in each individual state and city. Why is this the case for the second amendment?
    Using current logic, Roe v. Wade should only apply to Dallas, the Miranda decision only to Arizona at the most. What gives?
    "First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
    Edge of Darkness

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by automatic slim View Post
    I just can't make sense out of our current government. Supposedly the Constitution is the law of the land. If a city or state attempted to muzzle the New York Times for example, they would immediately point to the first amendment as their right to speak freely. It too is a federal law, but no one says we have to go to SCOTUS to affirm our right to speak freely in each individual state and city. Why is this the case for the second amendment?
    Using current logic, Roe v. Wade should only apply to Dallas, the Miranda decision only to Arizona at the most. What gives?
    It is the dumb "selective incorporation" doctrine started in the The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)

    Slaughter-House Cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    SCOTUS basically said the 14th amendment that was recently passed does nothing.

  4. #4
    Member Array socal2310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Camarillo, CA
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by nutz4utwo View Post
    It is the dumb "selective incorporation" doctrine started in the The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)

    Slaughter-House Cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    SCOTUS basically said the 14th amendment that was recently passed does nothing.
    Which is why we may well end up with more than five votes in favor of full Incorporation. The Slaughter-house cases were a blatant attempt to retain the precedent set by the Dred Scott decision against a constitutional amendment that was worded specifically to void it.

    I can't wait to see the look on the faces of Chicago city attorneys when that particular issue is brought up.

    Ryan
    Those who will not govern their own behavior are slaves waiting for a master; one will surely find them.

  5. #5
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by automatic slim View Post
    I just can't make sense out of our current government. Supposedly the Constitution is the law of the land. If a city or state attempted to muzzle the New York Times for example, they would immediately point to the first amendment as their right to speak freely. It too is a federal law, but no one says we have to go to SCOTUS to affirm our right to speak freely in each individual state and city. Why is this the case for the second amendment?
    Using current logic, Roe v. Wade should only apply to Dallas, the Miranda decision only to Arizona at the most. What gives?

    Well said!

    Too bad we know the answer. Cuz guns kill ppl and ppl are incapable of violence if guns were obliterated from our constitution.

    Some one lend me a time machine so I can go back and have a very long conversation with the Framers.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  6. #6
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,479
    I am hoping that the SCOTUS sends a message back to Chicago that involves a jar of vasoline...
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  7. #7
    Member Array Random's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clayton NC
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by automatic slim View Post
    I just can't make sense out of our current government. Supposedly the Constitution is the law of the land.
    The problem is that the Constitution has been pretty much ignored for quite some time now, by both major parties and all all levels of government.

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,798
    This could be win-win for gun rights. If they rule against Chicago, then 2A applies to all states, counties, cities across the nation. If they rule for Chicago, then state and local entities can make their own laws on this matter, thus validating Montanta's recent gun laws. IANAL, so I'm guessing that they'll rule against Chicago, because that throws the balance of power to the Federal Gov't instead of the states and that's a bigger issue than guns, in their minds. Of course my statements are uneducated speculation.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. NC Supreme Court restores felon's gun rights
    By Faitmaker in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: December 29th, 2012, 09:28 PM
  2. Ohio Supreme Court to hear gun rights case concerning Cleveland
    By Cold Warrior in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 11th, 2010, 04:46 AM
  3. A critical Second Amendment case goes before the Supreme Court
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: November 25th, 2009, 07:56 PM

Search tags for this page

nc supreme court restores felons gun rights

Click on a term to search for related topics.