District of Columbia v. Heller - Page 6

Switchcraft · 06-24-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Interesting yes. But what is Montana going to do, succeed from the union?

"You can't tell me not to say that, it's a violation of the 1st Amendment!"
"What're you gonna do, leave the country?"

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-24-2008, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

A ruling in favor of DC would allow the Federal government to place those same draconian restrictions in DC on the rest of the country...why would you argue that it's only going to expand the freedoms of the state governments if you know very well the federal government can, has, and does pass firearms laws? The state doesn't exist in a vacuum. Their citizens have constitutional rights too, and one of them was spelled out and guaranteed when they joined the Union, which was NOT that long ago. The oldest living person in the US was born less than 4 years after that.

As far as "they can go fly a kite," why the hostility? Do you keep some list of citizens allowed to argue for their Constitutional rights but these guys aren't on it?

Go fly a kite is hostile? I find the activity rather tranquil. What I was saying is they should calm down a bit. Even if this ruling goes D.C.'s way it isn't going to affect Montana unless the State of Montana wants to limit gun ownership.

This ruling is not whether the Federal Government can limit what firearms a individual can have. It is about whether a State can impose limitations.

This whole discussion reminds me of the joke where you ask somebody if they will sleep with you for a billion dollars. They say yes and then you ask if they will do it for 50 dollars.

There are all kinds of laws, at both the Federal and State level, that limit firearm ownership. We can't own RPG's or machine guns or even large quantitites of things that can make a bomb without much hassle. The state can deny your right simply because you had a nervous break down. It seems that we have already determined that we can make laws. The question is what is the limit of such laws.

*Edit

There is the question of what exactly D.C. is. It isn't a state. But is it really the domain of the Federal Government? At best this question is about how do you deal with D.C. with respect to the Federal/State debate. Do the people of D.C. have any rights akin to those afforded a state?

**CingularDuality** · 06-24-2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Interesting yes. But what is Montana going to do, succeed from the union?

Secede? No, they won't have to. Their contract with the USA will be broken and they simply won't be in the US anymore. Theoretically.

And this court case will have an effect on everyone in this country. Just because you're able to own a gun right now in your state doesn't mean you'll legally be able to 5 years from now, depending on this court case. This is absolutely historic.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-25-2008, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Secede? No, they won't have to. Their contract with the USA will be broken and they simply won't be in the US anymore. Theoretically.

And this court case will have an effect on everyone in this country. Just because you're able to own a gun right now in your state doesn't mean you'll legally be able to 5 years from now, depending on this court case. This is absolutely historic.

I just don't see it as that important. The only catch is the fact that this is in D.C. and D.C. is an odd situation. It isn't a state proper and the Congress has ultimate authority over it.

Did the Congress create the law in question?

Switchcraft · 06-25-2008, 12:14 AM

Regardless of the State/Federal divide, Gringo, I think there's a point in your logic I'm not catching.

If DC law is interpreted as "Constitutional, and the Federal Government can make such restrictions" then the Feds could pass such a law nationally, could they not?

If the DC law is interpreted as "Constitutional, and a State can make such restrictions" then the Feds could pass such a law nationally, could they not?

Whether or not the law is a state or federal law is completely outside the scope of whether or not the law is Constitutional...the Amendment doesn't specify, so I don't see the concern. The concern to me is whether we have the right at all.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-25-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Regardless of the State/Federal divide, Gringo, I think there's a point in your logic I'm not catching.

If DC law is interpreted as "Constitutional, and the Federal Government can make such restrictions" then the Feds could pass such a law nationally, could they not?

If the DC law is interpreted as "Constitutional, and a State can make such restrictions" then the Feds could pass such a law nationally, could they not?

Whether or not the law is a state or federal law is completely outside the scope of whether or not the law is Constitutional...the Amendment doesn't specify, so I don't see the concern. The concern to me is whether we have the right at all.

Just because a state is given a right does not mean the Feds automagically get the same right. States can pass laws that the federal government cannot.

The constitution spells out the Federal governments powers and says that everything else is left to the states. Nobody I have heard discuss this case has ever said this is about giving the feds gun regulatory powers. It isn't even if the State can regulate them. It is already understood that they can. It is about how much the state can regulate firearms.

Why do you think otherwise? Are there reasonable people saying this is about the feds coming to get our guns?

There are things covered by the 14th amendment that neither the state nor federal government can overrule. This isn't a 14th amendment case.

Switchcraft · 06-25-2008, 12:36 PM

If it is determined that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right to possess a gun do you think that it's completely inconceivable that the federal government could choose to enact federal gun legislation far beyond the scope of what it already has?

**CingularDuality** · 06-25-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Why do you think otherwise? Are there reasonable people saying this is about the feds coming to get our guns?

The stage is set for this case to determine, once and for all, whether or not the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right or whether it's some sort of collective right.

I don't think anyone's talking about pending legislation, but the potential for legislation is massive should this case go one way or the other...

**Sarcoma** · 06-25-2008, 01:51 PM

Cant wait for the ruling on this one. Either way its gonna be fun to watch the fallout.

Sarcoma

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-25-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

If it is determined that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right to possess a gun do you think that it's completely inconceivable that the federal government could choose to enact federal gun legislation far beyond the scope of what it already has?

Not if the court determines that it is a collective right between the State and the individual.

Cing is right and I said the same thing earlier.

At worst the court will decide that the states right to form a militia gives it some control over the individuals right to bear arms.

For the court to say that the fed now has a say in all this is very, very unlikely. The court would have to get into the matter of state national guard troops and standing armies and all that. Nothing indicates that this is where it is heading.

Steeler · 06-25-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

...once and for all...

That's a very shaky phrase to use in law. The court is usually reticient to lay down absolute rulings on broad judicial philosophy (except for Scalia). I expect them to rule as narrowly as possible on the case and punt on the collective/individual rights question.

That said, whatever they decide will become a major plank in future legislation and litigation, but just because the media and interested parties are angling for a showdown doesn't mean the court is going to give them the show they want.

**CingularDuality** · 06-25-2008, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Not if the court determines that it is a collective right between the State and the individual.

Cing is right and I said the same thing earlier.

At worst the court will decide that the states right to form a militia gives it some control over the individuals right to bear arms.

For the court to say that the fed now has a say in all this is very, very unlikely. The court would have to get into the matter of state national guard troops and standing armies and all that. Nothing indicates that this is where it is heading.

You're not making sense to me at all. What exactly is a "collective right between the State and the individual"? And if the court decides that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, what would stop Congress from enacting draconian gun control laws? The Bill of Rights applies to everyone at all levels of government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

That's a very shaky phrase to use in law. The court is usually reticient to lay down absolute rulings on broad judicial philosophy (except for Scalia). I expect them to rule as narrowly as possible on the case and punt on the collective/individual rights question.

You're right about my phrase, but the legal issue at hand here will force SCOTUS to rule on whether or not it's an individual right. Here are the questions presented to the court from the SCOTUS docket: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/07-00290qp.pdf

Quote:

07-290 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER
DECISION BELOW:478 F. 3d 370

QUESTIONS PRESENTED:

Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning
private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns

THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE
FOLLOWING QUESTION:

WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS - D.C.
CODE §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), AND 7-2507.02 - VIOLATE THE SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH
ANY STATE-REGULATED MILITIA, BUT WHO WISH TO KEEP HANDGUNS AND
OTHER FIREARMS FOR PRIVATE USE IN THEIR HOMES?

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-25-2008, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

You're not making sense to me at all. What exactly is a "collective right between the State and the individual"? And if the court decides that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, what would stop Congress from enacting draconian gun control laws? The Bill of Rights applies to everyone at all levels of government.

The state has a right to form a militia. To ensure the state can carry out this right the federal government cannot make any law restricting an individuals right to bear arms.

One cannot be separated from the other.

**CingularDuality** · 06-25-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

The state has a right to form a militia. To ensure the state can carry out this right the federal government cannot make any law restricting an individuals right to bear arms.

One cannot be separated from the other.

I've never heard anyone make that argument before, and I'm not seeing how the 2nd Amendment could possibly be interpreted as meaning such.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-25-2008, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I've never heard anyone make that argument before, and I'm not seeing how the 2nd Amendment could possibly be interpreted as meaning such.

Of course you have heard it before. We discussed it on another thread.

I don't see how anybody could interpret it otherwise.

The fact is if the founders wanted the right to be an individual right they would have made it so. They wouldn't have confused the issue with the preamble. They where not idiots and they wrote it very carefully and put much thought into it.

Those that want to make it only an indidvidual right, as I did only about a year ago, are being willfully ignorant.

This interpretation is only slightly less than an individual right. A right cannot be given up, even willfully. So the state cannot giveup their right to form a militia. Therefore the right to bear arms cannot be taken away.

Simple, really.

06-25-2008, 12:14 AM	#80 (permalink)
Switchcraft Join Date: May 2003 Location: New York, NY Age: 31 Posts: 1,096	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller Regardless of the State/Federal divide, Gringo, I think there's a point in your logic I'm not catching. If DC law is interpreted as "Constitutional, and the Federal Government can make such restrictions" then the Feds could pass such a law nationally, could they not? If the DC law is interpreted as "Constitutional, and a State can make such restrictions" then the Feds could pass such a law nationally, could they not? Whether or not the law is a state or federal law is completely outside the scope of whether or not the law is Constitutional...the Amendment doesn't specify, so I don't see the concern. The concern to me is whether we have the right at all.

06-25-2008, 12:36 PM	#82 (permalink)
Switchcraft Join Date: May 2003 Location: New York, NY Age: 31 Posts: 1,096	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller If it is determined that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right to possess a gun do you think that it's completely inconceivable that the federal government could choose to enact federal gun legislation far beyond the scope of what it already has?

06-25-2008, 01:51 PM	#84 (permalink)
Sarcoma Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: San Francisco Age: 37 Posts: 572	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller Cant wait for the ruling on this one. Either way its gonna be fun to watch the fallout. Sarcoma __________________ Sarcoma.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links