Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/18/2004 3:27:11 AM EST
A better question would be; Why has the SCOTUS refused to acknowledge the 2nd Amendment??


It was eager to take a case on the 1st and several others but when the question of the relativity of the good ol' 2nd comes up they refuse to hear it!?!?

I think it's because their affraid that if they rule in favor of the Second almost every firearms law on the books would become null and void, and if they rule against it there will be a huge opening for civil disobedience and confiscation.



What's your thoughts guy's?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:45:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 3:45:34 AM EST by Kharn]
IIRC, The judges are split 4 pro to 4 anti, with one swing vote. Neither side wants that swing vote (OConner?) to go to the other side.

Kharn
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:13:05 AM EST
btt

Anyone elso want to add their .02 cents?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:18:27 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:32:12 AM EST
As the Hun said, it's probably best to wait until we have a solid majority on SCOTUS before we hand them the case that could either declare all gun laws unconstitutional, or keep the National Guard BS going for another 50 years or so.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:33:24 AM EST
Nothing obligates the Court to hear any particular case; they pick a case based on there being some interest amongst the Justices in the subject material or a sense that the case involves a legal issue that needs to be addressed. Unlike the members here, most people don't find gun issues at the top of their agenda or area of interest.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:33:29 AM EST
Well stated Hun!
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:45:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
Nothing obligates the Court to hear any particular case; Unlike the members here, most people don't find gun issues at the top of their agenda or area of interest.



True, I didn't look at it that way.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:46:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
We don't need THIS Supreme Court to open its collective mouth on anything so fundamantal as the Right to Keep and Bear Arms!

They would only screw it up royally at present.

Wait until we have a more favorable split in the Court.

And keep voting Republican!

If we had 60 Senators who were right-minded, we could have some decent conservative Justices on the Court, and on other federal benches!

Today, and tomorrow, and thereafter, there are gun shows across the Nation where gunowners and new gunowners alike are purchasing more and more weaponry, accessories, and ammunition!

So long as that IS occurring, we ARE preparing for the future!

Eric The(SlowAndSteadyWinsTheRace)Hun



Well said, thanks for the imput.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:54:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 6:04:12 AM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:01:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Thanks, and from the procedural standpoint alone, the Silvera Case was messed up from the very beginning!

The attorneys for the NRA opposed it being brought forward at all.

We stood a good chance of getting a horrendus decision based upon half-baked arguments.

In the Appellate Court, the plaintiff's counsel, who was supporting the RKBA, FAILED TO EVEN FILE A REPLY BRIEF to the government's brief.

In appellate practice that is a real mistake. An almost unforgiveable mistake, since as Appellant you are entitled to the last word! And you can bat any opposing arguments out of the ballpark IF you have the material to do so.

This guy didn't have enough material to argue that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to Keep and Bear Arms?

I've seen some appellate attorney save their very best arguments and supporting materials FOR their reply brief!

And a lot of appellate court judges will read both the original brief and the reply brief of the Appellant's prior to reading the brief of the Appellee, simply in order to thoroughly understand how well the Appellee answers the issues on appeal.

We dodged the bullet on this one, folks!

Eric The(SorryForThePun)Hun




Now this begs a question Eric; Under what terms should the 2nd be brought to the SCOTUS attention?

What should be the trigger that set's off the chain reaction leading to them (SCOTUS) finally taking the case?

I mean you just can't bring a case to their attention without first going trough State and Fedaral courts, or can you?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:02:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 6:03:13 AM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:10:34 AM EST


I think both sides of the RKBA issue within the Court itself are scrambling to hear that particular case that will support its view of the Second Amendment!

And God Help Us all, if the liberal wing of the Court gets the case that it wishes!

Eric The(WellArmed)Hun



Now this begs a question Eric; Under what terms should the 2nd be brought to the SCOTUS attention?

What could/should be the trigger that set's off the chain reaction leading to them (SCOTUS) finally taking the case?


I mean you just can't bring a case to their attention without first going trough State and Fedaral courts, or can you?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:11:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
That is quite true, except there is presently a division among the Courts of Appeal regarding the Second Amendment!

The 5th Circuit in the Emerson Case held that it secures an individual's right, but the 9th Circuit held in the Hickman Case that it secured nothing more than a collective right.

This is precisely the circumstance where a final, determinative opinion by SCOTUS is expected!

I think both sides of the RKBA issue within the Court itself are scrambling to hear that particular case that will support its view of the Second Amendment!

And God Help Us all, if the liberal wing of the Court gets the case that it wishes!




If the Court will hear the case, hopefully the pro-gun side will put more effort into presenting its supporting arguments for its position than it does in the court of public opinion on other gun laws.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:19:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:24:17 AM EST
Ok, one final question; whats taking so long for some of those old liberal judges to retire?? I heard it through the grape vine that the pro-dem judges are going to hang on until Bush II has either been defeated or his possible second term is up.

Have you guys heard anything of the sort?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:27:41 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:29:20 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:45:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 6:47:22 AM EST by Synister1]
I nominate EricTheHun for SCJ. Can I get a Second.

Get enough signatures we could send it to the white house and make the Dems Crap their suits. God forbid a Pro-2nd person ever get on there.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:48:30 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:21:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 7:22:27 AM EST by Sniper_408]
Ok, now I'm gonna test ya Eric.

Why is it that the 2nd is the ONLY amendment that is seemingly written in two parts?
See here:
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

In every other amendment there is one distinct point that is being expressed by the founding fathers, where as in the Second there are TWO distinctly different points being expressed.



Because this particular amendment was written this way you get a major problem like the one below.

The liberals always use the first half of the S.A. as proof positive that it is a "collective" right and not an individual right. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, furthermore the liberals point out that militias are obsolete and in doing so, they believe this further proves their point that the 2nd is antiquated and in need of changing.

On the other hand conservatives always rely on the second half of the Amendment to prove it's an "individual right": the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed..

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Link Posted: 9/18/2004 8:03:16 AM EST
Another question for Eric,

In the Emerson case a "crime" was committed (if I'm not mistaken) necessitating appeals ,etc.. Would it be possible for a citizen to bring a civil rights lawsuit against the .gov for infringemnets in the federal court?

If so, why hasn't the NRA, GOA, etc. done so?


Thanks


96Ag
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 1:16:40 PM EST
This is a damn complex issue.

State's Rights are involved, how many here want the Feds as much out of the picture as possible??? The guys in "liberal" states that allow almost unlimited gun rights. They guys wanting the Feds to get involved and take the lead (by incorporation) are those in the States where the States have in their opinion over-regulated gun issues.

Right now with a Republican majority in congress, Federal Pre-Emption would be good and save us in CA, NY, MD, etc. However if the Dems ever got back in charge , the AWB would look like a blessing compared to what they want to impose.

Ergo, we probably want to keep the States in charge for the vast majority of us.

What we need is a case that ; will incorporate, confirm individual right, eliminate almost all Federal restrictions in a manner Congress can't over-ride.

Gonna take a real unique case that does all three, anything that only gives us 2 of the 3 may be disastrous. Think it through, Doesn't incorporate, confirms that the FEDS can't restrict individual rights and eliminates Federal restrictions but leaves States to regulate, will only help those in "good" states, those in "bad" states will get more screwed. and so on.
Top Top