Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/10/2001 4:57:37 PM EDT
Supposedly the Emerson Case is being appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court decides to hear it and comes to the conclusion that the Second Amendment is not an individual right, then what?
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 5:06:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 5:07:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 5:24:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2001 5:26:02 PM EDT by oneshot1kill]
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 5:44:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 6:00:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Maynard: If they were to hear it I would submit that they would rule that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right but that does not mean it is not subject to regulation at the Local, state and Federal level. As much as I would like them to rule that the Second is an absolute right, I understand how the system works. There is no way they will rule the Second is absolute. None Nadda Zip Zero Zilch
View Quote
I agree with you 100% Maynard. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 6:15:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 11:28:31 PM EDT
Didn't the SC just recently refuse to hear the case regarding the overturning of the NJ "assault weapon" ban?
Link Posted: 12/11/2001 12:54:23 AM EDT
You dont watch much TV do you Maynard. If you did you would realise that we are winning the PR war by a bunch. The Supreme court will hear the case and they wont declare the 2nd "absolute"- what ever the hell that means. They will instead afferm the ruling of the 5th Circut Court. The state CAN via due process suspend or revoke the individuals right to bear arms just like they can revoke your freedom (imprisonment and the draft) and take your life (death penalty). They will rule that the federal blanket law on prohibiting someone under restraining order to posses firearms violated Emersons right to due process. This WILL extend the 2nd to the States via the 14th Amendment... The most important result of this will not be to "Assault rifle" laws in various states, but to the Concealed Carry Laws. It would give a very good foundations for lawsuits involving the arbatrary denial of CCW permits and the denial of reciprocity between the states, also the virtual firearms bans in NYC, DC, and Cook County would be vulnerable. Once this happens the anti-gun legislation will tumble like a house of cards. Once people in these locations can buy guns again legally they will discover they are NOT evil, their ignorance will be swept away and they States will rectify their own laws via their legislatures. If the Republicans gain seats in the Congress this year, and the war is over by then, you might see Ashcroft and the Justice Department sue some of the states you want for interfering with the Militia with their restrictive laws. But that is a ways down the road and it is dependant on a lot of variables, and ultimately it might not even be needed. I KNOW we have three justices who want to hear this case, Rhenquest, Thomas and Scalia. The question is who the fourth might be.
Link Posted: 12/11/2001 1:00:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: Didn't the SC just recently refuse to hear the case regarding the overturning of the NJ "assault weapon" ban?
View Quote
Yes, but if I recall correctly, that case was based on the commerce clause, not the 2nd Ammendment.
Top Top