Comments on: Supreme Court Takes Chicago Handgun Case in Major Test of Second Amendment Rights

By: Mike Spindell

Mike Spindell — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:27:14 +0000

Look, I don’t care about that highfalutin Supreme whatever it is, I just want to be able to bring my Sig Sauer SIG556 and P250 any damn place I want, you never know when bad people will show up, even at a Jonas Brothers Concert. Same goes for those crazies who go to see The Osmonds.

By: Gary T

Gary T — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:57:19 +0000

Raiche style incorporation has no real basis in the Commerce Clause. It is inference upon inference, hence instrastate marijuana should have no federal regulability.
The 2nd Amendment is one of the Bill of rights, very explicit and now certified as an individual right by the Scotus. To be picking and choosing which one of the bill of rights now applies to the states is really dirty sophistry.
All of the bill of rights are applicable to the states.

By: Tom H

Tom H — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:50:20 +0000

This case is potentially historic for another reason that few people (save a handfull of legal scholars) are talking about yet — namely that McDonald argues for incorporation of the Second Amendment via the Privileges or Immunities Clause, and thus asks the Court to reverse the Slaughter-House cases (a horrible Supreme Court opinion that completely ignored the text, meaning, and history of the Privileges or Immunities clause). This could totally change the Court’s 14th Amendment jurisprudence — not only with respect to incorporation, but also with respect to substantive due process.

And I think the Court is seriously thinking about doing it. As I wrote in the comments of the previous post, the NRA case was proceeding with the ordinary Due Process/selective incorporation argument. Why did the Court choose the McDonald case? Quite possibly because it wants to correct Slaughterhouse.

Here’s hoping.

By: foo

foo — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:36:36 +0000

Prediction: Thomas votes against incorporation. He is a staunch federalist. Look at his dissent in Raich (SC holding that the Congress can regulate medicinal marijuana through commerce clause).

It will be a 6-3 decision against incorporation.

By: “Court to rule on gun rights, terrorism law” and related posts « Twitter

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:03:38 +0000

[...] Supreme Court Takes Chicago Handgun Case in Major Test of Second Amendment Rights - JONATHAN TURLEY [...]

By: girlyassmusic.com » “Court to rule on gun rights, terrorism law” and related posts - 79th Edition

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:25:56 +0000

[...] Supreme Court Takes Chicago Handgun Case in Major Test of Second Amendment Rights - JONATHAN TURLEY [...]

By: Bob,Esq.

Bob,Esq. — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:25:28 +0000

Automatic weapons? Since when were they legal?

Anyway, while I can see the Court following the reasoning in Heller, I’ve been waiting for fifteen years to see if SCOTUS would ever incorporate the 2nd as good against the states.

By: Pat

Pat — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:03:10 +0000

Reducing to absurdity: Does one “under” the second ammendment have the right to possess BNC (biological, chemical, nuclear) “arms”. If you want to say that these are not “arms” as envisioned by the founders…I will counter that neither are revolvers, automatic weapons, RPGs, or anything but breach loaded pistols/muskets/rifles. Thus…I am entitled to the centrifuge in my basement.

By: puzzling

puzzling — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:34:30 +0000

I hope this case marks the end of selective incorporation of these rights.

By: rcampbell

rcampbell — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:30:56 +0000

Conservatives defend guns and are trying to prevent health care reform. They have no shame.

By: Dredd

Dredd — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:30:27 +0000

MacK,

Legal hermeneutics tries to standardize the way we interpret text, but with even sophisticated interpretation procedures people come up with differing opinions.

The legal definition of ambiguity is two reasonable people looking at the same text and coming up with two meanings, both reasonable.

That is why we had the 14th Amendment … it was said that some of the rights, even in the bill of rights, applied only to the federal government and not the state governments.

I did not read it that way, but the 14th “made it clear” that certain of the bill of rights did in fact apply to the states too.

Now we have this deja vu all over again and one of the bill of rights, the second, is once again part of the debate as to whether the rights apply only to the federal government.

Crazy. Any human rights of the bill of rights type should axiomatically apply to all governments.

By: Mikeyes

Mikeyes — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:36:36 +0000

Historically not all rights guaranteed by the Constitution has been deemed to be incorporated (I can’t think of an instance right now)so there is a question about the 2nd Amendment but the more interesting question about the 2nd Amendment incorporation is who is for it and who is against?

It appears that both the right and the left are split on this issue. Some on the right feel that it is an imposition on the states to incorporate while others (the NRA, for example) feel that it is needed to promote their ideas.

On the left there are those who feel that incorporation will kill off the anti-gun movement while others think that they can then regulate all firearms on a national basis and over-ride the constitutions of such states as AZ and VT by introducing federal standards regulating the carrying of arms, etc.

I’ll get the popcorn.

By: MacK

MacK — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:57:25 +0000

Am I not reading this correct? Are they arguing that states can reject the 2nd amendment if they so want? If that is the case then they can reject the 1st, so that in their state you can’t speak freely. They can reject the fourth, so that in their state you have no privacy, and a cop can peek in your windows while you have sex with your wife, because you may be growing weed in there. Hell many probably would like to ignore the 13th amendment, so they can get that cotton pick cheaper.

By: Anonymously Yours

Anonymously Yours — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:19:36 +0000

Ba = Bar duh.

By: Anonymously Yours

Anonymously Yours — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:14:42 +0000

Send em to that Ba in Arizona let em have a Beer with Obama. after about 15 beers whoever shoots the best decides the supreme law of the land. The rest well, move over to boot hill. I guess they are waiting for you.

By: Dredd

Dredd — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:14:03 +0000

The 9th Circuit stayed its en banc proceeding on this issue until the Supremes make their decision.