Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 6/28/2015 11:35:48 AM EDT
So the SCOTUS has just made a huge slippery slope, however the overall premise if their recent ruling is that states cannot take away constitutional rights or limit them. So would this not apply to the 2nd amendment?  If the 14th trumps the 9th then all constitutional rights are now legal everywhere?  So a CHP should be legal anywhere now?  Regulations on the types of carrying and arbitrary gun restrictions are unconstitutional now (I already view then as such)
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 4:40:21 PM EDT
[#1]
I don't know why this thread was stillborn.

You have thought of something which I didn't, and it will be interesting to see who, if anyone, pursues this opening.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 4:41:56 PM EDT
[#2]
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 5:12:41 PM EDT
[#3]
Um.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 5:20:40 PM EDT
[#4]
Remains to be seen.  Part of the problem is the 2nd has had relatively little case law over the years.  Until the last five or six years there was virtually none.  It certainly opens up a line of reasoning.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 5:23:44 PM EDT
[#5]
Seems like solid logic to me, however if using the past as a barometer for logic based reasoning when it comes to gun laws I think we're fucked.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 5:35:00 PM EDT
[#6]
More likely someone will just use the same logic to say that they have the "right" to feel safe from guns.  When they travel to a different state, they should be able to feel as safe as they felt in their ban state....
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 5:43:28 PM EDT
[#7]
The ruling class sees the 2nd as a bastard child, fit for whipping however they see fit.  And SCOTUS no longer even attempts to use logic to arrive at their conclusions, so those of you seeing the silver lining are just pissing into the wind.



Link Posted: 6/30/2015 5:50:25 PM EDT
[#8]
Nolo should make that claim just so we cn watch silence in the court room.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 6:04:01 PM EDT
[#9]
If states are going to be required to honor other states' marriage licenses, I'd like that to be used to push ccw reciprocity.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 6:09:32 PM EDT
[#10]
Its in several threads already but there are so many threads on gays that searching is futile.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 6:47:14 PM EDT
[#11]
That isn't how it will be applied to the 2A. The authors of the 2A intended for it to apply only to the arms of the day. If they had intended for it to apply to modern firearms they would have said something along the lines of "all existing and future developments in, arms". So because they didn't add that part about future developments they really intended the 2A to only apply to muskets, swords and cannons (like 5 lbers or whatever the standard cannon was in those days). See how that intent thing works.



This is part of why Scalia made his remark about words no longer having meaning.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 6:51:05 PM EDT
[#12]
No Habla
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 6:54:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
That isn't how it will be applied to the 2A. The authors of the 2A intended for it to apply only to the arms of the day. If they had intended for it to apply to modern firearms they would have said something along the lines of "all existing and future developments in, arms". So because they didn't add that part about future developments they really intended the 2A to only apply to muskets, swords and cannons (like 5 lbers or whatever the standard cannon was in those days). See how that intent thing works.

This is part of why Scalia made his remark about words no longer having meaning.
View Quote


Machine guns predate the Constitution.
eta: ok, maybe the predecessor to the machine gun but this musket bullshit is getting old.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 6:57:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
That isn't how it will be applied to the 2A. The authors of the 2A intended for it to apply only to the arms of the day. If they had intended for it to apply to modern firearms they would have said something along the lines of "all existing and future developments in, arms". So because they didn't add that part about future developments they really intended the 2A to only apply to muskets, swords and cannons (like 5 lbers or whatever the standard cannon was in those days). See how that intent thing works.

This is part of why Scalia made his remark about words no longer having meaning.
View Quote


then the first is invalid - no internet, radio, or television.
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 7:28:30 PM EDT
[#15]
The second amendment is the only amendment where "the people" doesn't mean the people.

Just ask any liberal. (or democrat)
Link Posted: 6/30/2015 11:34:21 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
That isn't how it will be applied to the 2A. The authors of the 2A intended for it to apply only to the arms of the day. If they had intended for it to apply to modern firearms they would have said something along the lines of "all existing and future developments in, arms". So because they didn't add that part about future developments they really intended the 2A to only apply to muskets, swords and cannons (like 5 lbers or whatever the standard cannon was in those days). See how that intent thing works.

This is part of why Scalia made his remark about words no longer having meaning.
View Quote

Excellent sarcasm but really, the Framers believed we would be tar & feathering the Supremes (and others) way before this horseshit.  They weren't a protected species back then.  They had to walk amongst the populous.   THAT will keep a motherfucker rational.  
Link Posted: 7/3/2015 11:00:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I don't know why this thread was stillborn.

You have thought of something which I didn't, and it will be interesting to see who, if anyone, pursues this opening.
View Quote


To be honest I just now realized people actually responded to this post, explaining my late reply (sorry for the bump), but I'm not sure who exactly would pursue it, I would assume it would be someone who was arrested while conceal carrying where not allowed.  But I'm not sure the Obama administration would ever let a case get that far
Link Posted: 7/3/2015 11:01:33 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
More likely someone will just use the same logic to say that they have the "right" to feel safe from guns.  When they travel to a different state, they should be able to feel as safe as they felt in their ban state....
View Quote


Well, theoretically I suppose they could also make up the right to feeling safe as a constitutional right, similar to the whole marriage ordeal, but I feel that would be much harder to argue than an actual amendment already in place
Link Posted: 7/3/2015 11:48:51 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Well, theoretically I suppose they could also make up the right to feeling safe as a constitutional right, similar to the whole marriage ordeal, but I feel that would be much harder to argue than an actual amendment already in place
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
More likely someone will just use the same logic to say that they have the "right" to feel safe from guns.  When they travel to a different state, they should be able to feel as safe as they felt in their ban state....


Well, theoretically I suppose they could also make up the right to feeling safe as a constitutional right, similar to the whole marriage ordeal, but I feel that would be much harder to argue than an actual amendment already in place

Sadly, I don't have even a smidgen of faith in the rule of law anymore.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top