Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws!  
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Posted (4 years 2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3732 times:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100628/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2876

We all have varying opinions on the matter but for myself and groups I am involved with, this is a BIG win. About time there comes change with these illegal laws IMHO.

Fair use:

Quote:
With its decision Monday in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court forever changed the terms of debate over the right to bear arms. The 5-4 vote extends principles the court laid out in 2008, when it struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. In finding that the Second Amendment extends to state and local laws, the court has unequivocally affirmed an individual right to own handguns for self-defense, and has restricted every city and state in the kinds of gun-control laws they may enact.

and

Quote:
The court essentially said state and local laws banning handguns (which preclude citizens from owning handguns for self-defense in the home) are too strict. The decision flows directly from the court's ruling in the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington, D.C.'s blanket ban on handguns. While that case already addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment by affirming the right of citizens to own handguns, it applied only on a federal level. (D.C. is under federal jurisdiction.) This case — by way of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment — extends the same interpretation of the Second Amendment to state and local levels. Taken together, these rulings say that the Constitution bars various levels of government from banning handgun ownership.



What gets measured gets done.
168 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

Imagine that - the USSC had to rule that the Bill of Rights actually DOES apply to everyone in the country. The shocking thing is that 4 judges (admittedly liberals) actually voted against it. Had the decision gone the other way, that would have opened the door to local officials overruling other rights, such as the freedom of speech or any other right we now take for granted.


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineJetsGo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3083 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3709 times:

I'm kind of surprised it took until now for this topic to be started. I guess I figured someone already did but it got deleted after people couldn't keep it civilized. Anyway, quite the victory today. However, as victorious as this is, it's still shocking that four judges seem to think the Second Amendment can actually be overridden with these unconstitutional gun bans. What else do they think they can override?


Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3667 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Thread starter):
this is a BIG win.

Are you sure?

This case effectively puts the final nail in the coffin of "states rights."

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Imagine that - the USSC had to rule that the Bill of Rights actually DOES apply to everyone in the country.

Funny that you say that considering when the Bill of Rights was written, it was very clear to EVERYONE that it did not bind the states. It bound the feds. If you want to be snarky, you should educate yourself on the history first.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Had the decision gone the other way, that would have opened the door to local officials overruling other rights, such as the freedom of speech or any other right we now take for granted.

Depends on the right. The states STILL can deny you a jury trial in a civil trial. Yup, that 7th Amendment doesn't apply outside the federal system.

This opinion decimates the 10th Amendment once and for all.

Congratulations - yall got what yall deserved.

Quoting JetsGo (Reply 2):
Anyway, quite the victory today. However, as victorious as this is, it's still shocking that four judges seem to think the Second Amendment can actually be overridden with these unconstitutional gun bans.

I wonder if I should bother explaining what a circular argument is here.

You've assumed your conclusion before you presented your argument.

It is not the case that the "second amendment was overridden" by Chicago. For the last 309 years, the Second Amendment simply didn't apply to Chicago because Chicago is not the federal government.

It sickens me that Americans know so little about the reach of the Constitution, and therefore are not remotely bothered by this federal encroachment of rights, namely the right for a group of people to decide their own local laws.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineGo3Team From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3267 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3659 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
Funny that you say that considering when the Bill of Rights was written, it was very clear to EVERYONE that it did not bind the states.

By that, states can limit speech, establish the Church of New York, etc?



Yay Pudding!
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1635 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3645 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Imagine that - the USSC had to rule that the Bill of Rights actually DOES apply to everyone in the country.

I am so very excited. Its about damn time!!!!! Long overdue over here.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5601 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3630 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):

This case effectively puts the final nail in the coffin of "states rights."

No, the 14th Amendment did. Now that we have a majority of the Supreme Court that know how to read, you'll be seeing more and more cases like these, and not just cases pertaining to gun rights.

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
If you want to be snarky, you should educate yourself on the history first.

If you want to be Mr. Know-it-All, you should educate yourself on the Constitution:

Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Quoting D L X (Reply 4):

This opinion decimates the 10th Amendment once and for all.

Which was superseded by the above amendment.

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
It sickens me that Americans know so little about the reach of the Constitution

Doesn't it though?  Edit: On another note, it's really distressing to see that people still think that the Supreme Court makes the rules. The Constitution makes the rules, and it's the SCOTUS's job to make sure that those rules are being followed. One cannot simply ignore a piece of it just because they don't like it. If you don't like it, tell your elected officials to change it. If enough people want it done, it will happen. Otherwise, accept that we live in a country where the voice of a few (or even many, but not the vast majority) cannot change the fundamental rules of society.

[Edited 2010-06-28 23:36:27]


"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25173 posts, RR: 48
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3613 times:

Frankly I think there should be single Federal laws when it comes to gun ownership, not a patchwork of local and State laws.

In my view guns ownership is very much a Federal issue and a basic right imparted on Americans and not one that local jurisdictions should be able to willy nilly modify as if this was a benign issue such as traffic laws.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently onlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5249 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 4 days ago) and read 3601 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 7):
If you want to be Mr. Know-it-All, you should educate yourself on the Constitution:

You do realize that DLX is an attorney and probably knows the Constitution better than anyone else in this thread don't you?



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 4 days ago) and read 3591 times:

Quoting Go3Team (Reply 5):
By that, states can limit speech, establish the Church of New York, etc?

Originally, that was in fact the case. And, some states did have official religions.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 7):
Now that we have a majority of the Supreme Court that know how to read,

And that might be the most arrogant thing I've ever read on this board. Are you really saying that 140 years of Supreme Court Justices were illiterate, because they didn't come to the conclusion that you wanted? That's a whole lot of people that you are apparently smarter than.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 7):
If you want to be Mr. Know-it-All, you should educate yourself on the Constitution:

Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Quoting D L X (Reply 4):

This opinion decimates the 10th Amendment once and for all.

Which was superseded by the above amendment.

Go read the Slaughterhouse cases. Privileges and Immunities hasn't meant anything for over 100 years.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):
Frankly I think there should be single Federal laws when it comes to gun ownership, not a patchwork of local and State laws.

Why? If people in my building decide that we don't want guns allowed in my building, shouldn't we be able to do that? How about my block? How about my neighborhood? How about my town? How about my city? How about my state? Up until yesterday, my building, block, neighborhood, town, city, and state could ban guns if a majority of its voters so chose. And it was that way for 309 years.

That's a sure heluva a long time...It's not like people didn't know. But apparently, SCOTUS (and many other Americans) have forgotten.

What really shocks me about the whole thing is Mr. Original Intent, Justice Scalia, threw original intent right out the window with this ruling.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25173 posts, RR: 48
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3576 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
Why? If people in my building decide that we don't want guns allowed in my building, shouldn't we be able to do that? How about my block? How about my neighborhood? How about my town? How about my city? How about my state? Up until yesterday, my building, block, neighborhood, town, city, and state could ban guns if a majority of its voters so chose. And it was that way for 309 years.

Well assuming you believe that the Constitutional framers meant to impart the right to bear arms on its citizens, no I don't feel you should be able to circumvent or infringe this right locally.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3422 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3564 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
This opinion decimates the 10th Amendment once and for all.

No it doesn't, the 10th Amendment grants the right to States to make laws that the Constitution does NOT cover.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 9):
You do realize that DLX is an attorney and probably knows the Constitution better than anyone else in this thread don't you?

So? Apparently 4 lawyers couldn't read the Second Amendment.

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
Go read the Slaughterhouse cases. Privileges and Immunities hasn't meant anything for over 100 years.

Not according to Clarence Thomas who wrote an opinion supporting the majority view but with different legal reasoning using Priviledges and Immunities.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently onlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5249 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3547 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 12):
So? Apparently 4 lawyers couldn't read the Second Amendment.

So you're suggesting that they're illiterate, or at the very least, incapable of comprehending a document that they are supposed to ensure is being properly implemented?

[Edited 2010-06-29 02:50:43]


Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3505 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
This case effectively puts the final nail in the coffin of "states rights."

How?

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
Funny that you say that considering when the Bill of Rights was written, it was very clear to EVERYONE that it did not bind the states. It bound the feds.

Bull. Why have a Constitution and a bill of rights if it did not apply to the states?

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
This opinion decimates the 10th Amendment once and for all.

No it doesn't - it reinforces it. The states can do what they want, but when it comes to rights laid out in the Constitution, the states need to back off.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 7):
Which was superseded by the above amendment.

Again, logically the 10th is reinforced. Only be perverted modern lawyer-logic can they be twisted as you describe.

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
Why? If people in my building decide that we don't want guns allowed in my building, shouldn't we be able to do that? How about my block? How about my neighborhood? How about my town? How about my city? How about my state? Up until yesterday, my building, block, neighborhood, town, city, and state could ban guns if a majority of its voters so chose. And it was that way for 309 years.

What if your town decides that they don't need free speech, and eliminate the ability of political opponents to campaign? You'd have no problem with that?

The whole point of this ruling is that the right to own a weapon is just as much an essential right as the right to free speech and the right to worship.

[quote=OA412,reply=13]Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 12):
So? Apparently 4 lawyers couldn't read the Second Amendment.

So you're suggesting that they're illiterate, or at the very least, incapable of comprehending a document that they are supposed to ensure is being properly implemented?

No - they simply ignored it because it went against their prejudices. Just like other people here they said, "No matter what the Constitution says, I cannot equate the right to bear arms with other rights such as free speech, and am willing to treat them differently".

This ruling exposes for all to see the lack of respect liberals have for the Constitution. It means what it says. The right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed, except in certain cases according to the 5th amendment where rights and liberties can be taken away through a legal process - i.e. felons and people who have been legally judged to be incapable of responsible conduct.

Let's remember why the 14th amendment was written. One of the main reasons was to ensure that southern states, just after the civil war, stopped denying freed slaves the right to own guns, without which they were helpless against vindictive hooligans that would go around attacking and even lynching them. Justice Thomas went into that history in depth in his opinion.

Start reading around page 26. The 14th was especially relevant to the 2nd amendment in ensuring that local/state laws could not override individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8227 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3457 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
Funny that you say that considering when the Bill of Rights was written, it was very clear to EVERYONE that it did not bind the states. It bound the feds

And, IIRC, the primary loyalty of people at the time was to their State, not some new fangled Federal government. That's why you have state's rights.

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
What really shocks me about the whole thing is Mr. Original Intent, Justice Scalia, threw original intent right out the window with this ruling.

Scalia, like the other hard conservatives, will go with a decision that keeps up their image and popularity in the Conservative Community.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
This ruling exposes for all to see the lack of respect liberals have for the Constitution.

That's like talking about the lack of respect that Conservatives have for the people of this country, or for those parts of the Constitution, or laws passed within the Constitution, that serve people who don't happen to be conservative.

As for the decision, I think people in Chicago will have a concern about it bringing in "the Old Wild West", except on drugs. It's a decision that supports the gangs as well as the honest people who want to own a gun.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3438 times:

Finally the people of Chicago have the right to legally defend themselves.


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3433 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
What really shocks me about the whole thing is Mr. Original Intent, Justice Scalia, threw original intent right out the window with this ruling.

Scalia, like the other hard conservatives, will go with a decision that keeps up their image and popularity in the Conservative Community.

So you are saying that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was NOT to guarantee the right to bear arms for all law-abiding citizens?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
As for the decision, I think people in Chicago will have a concern about it bringing in "the Old Wild West", except on drugs. It's a decision that supports the gangs as well as the honest people who want to own a gun.

My understanding is that the gun ban is very popular among the gangbangers and other criminal classes. It was safer to rob people's homes when you know that the owner is unlikely to be armed.

Remember the guy who brought the lawsuit. Mr. McDonald is an older black gentleman (incidentally a hard democrat, from his comments), who grew sick and tired of people breaking into his house and ruining the neighborhood, and the police not doing anything about it. The cops can't be everywhere.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3426 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
As for the decision, I think people in Chicago will have a concern about it bringing in "the Old Wild West", except on drugs. It's a decision that supports the gangs as well as the honest people who want to own a gun.

My understanding is that the gun ban is very popular among the gangbangers and other criminal classes. It was safer to rob people's homes when you know that the owner is unlikely to be armed.

Remember the guy who brought the lawsuit. Mr. McDonald is an older black gentleman (incidentally a hard democrat, from his comments), who grew sick and tired of people breaking into his house and ruining the neighborhood, and the police not doing anything about it. The cops can't be everywhere.

Ken my friend.
The south side of Chicago is worse than the Wild Wild West.
Trust me on that.
I have older relatives on the south side and I am always concerend for their safety. It has got so bad down there that I rather pay for a hotel downtown or stay with friends out in the burbs when visiting relatives in Chicago.
I am glad they can legally own a gun. They already know how to use them as they all grew up in the Deep South back in the 1930s & 40s.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3388 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
This case effectively puts the final nail in the coffin of "states rights."

How?

Because this ruling basically states that there is no bar to incorporating the bill of rights against the states. You really should go read abuot this. There's a pretty good article on wikipedia about Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. That knowledge is really prerequisite to having any sort of educated discussion on this topic.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
Funny that you say that considering when the Bill of Rights was written, it was very clear to EVERYONE that it did not bind the states. It bound the feds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

Bull. Why have a Constitution and a bill of rights if it did not apply to the states?

Because the citizens of the country in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was being discussed, considered themselves more aligned with their states than with a national image. People from Virginia that went to France would tell people there they were Virginians. They would not say they were Americans, for instance. National identity took hold after the Civil War.

You have to understand the dimensions of the colonies and the reason they were founded. Pennsylvania was a Quaker colony. Maryland was a Catholic colony. Massachusetts was a Puritan (Congregationalist) colony. People in Maryland were happy with their Catholic rules and were wary of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania having too much power, and possibly making them change to be more like them. THAT is why we have a First Amendment, for instance - to make sure the federal government could not make a law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of. But Maryland could be as Catholic as it wanted to be.

As it pertains to the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court had already stated that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." In other words, the states could flatly ignore the Second Amendment at their leisure. (See US v. Cruikshank)

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
The states can do what they want, but when it comes to rights laid out in the Constitution, the states need to back off.

And as I've tried to tell you, the states were not bound, nor were they intended to be bound, by the Bill of Rights. You need to wrap your brain around that thought. I understand that it may be a novel thought since it's something that is rarely taught outside of law schools, so most people (including our lackluster media) don't know it anymore.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
What if your town decides that they don't need free speech, and eliminate the ability of political opponents to campaign? You'd have no problem with that?

Go read the Incorporation article I posted to see the distinction. Those rights you mention are considered fundamental rights, meaning they've been incorporated to apply against the states by the 14th Amendment.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
This ruling exposes for all to see the lack of respect liberals have for the Constitution.

And Charles, you are continuing to go headlong into this debate while blindfolded with a lack of requisite knowledge of the Bill of Rights. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but it really is important. With the correct background, you would see that it is the conservatives on the court that are having a lack of respect for the Constitution, and are being extremely partisan in their ruling. IN FACT, the 5 in the majority have literally thrown out conservative judicial philosophy to reach this politically conservative result. Is that law? No. Is it logical? No. It's literally like a ref throwing the game because he wanted his favorite team to win.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
Let's remember why the 14th amendment was written. One of the main reasons was to ensure that southern states, just after the civil war, stopped denying freed slaves the right to own guns

UTTER BULL. THE reason for the 14th Amendment was to give all persons (including blacks) the same rights and due process. Note the absence of the word "arms" in the amendment. The arms argument is an argument that just suddenly showed up recently.

Also, note what IS in the 14A is section 5. Section 5 allows Congress to enact legislation to do pretty much whatever it wants as a long as it is furthering the goals of the 14A sections 1-4. So, if they wanted to, they could enact (and repeal) a right to bear arms that the States would have been bound by. They never did.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
So you are saying that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was NOT to guarantee the right to bear arms for all law-abiding citizens?

The purpose of the second amendment was to make sure that militia could be drawn in case the British came back, and to prevent a tyrannical government (like the one they had just won independence from) from suppressing the people.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Remember the guy who brought the lawsuit. Mr. McDonald is an older black gentleman (incidentally a hard democrat

Oh, well, in that case, never mind right? It's all hunky dory because a liberal wanted a gun?

Again, that is not law.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
Why have a Constitution and a bill of rights if it did not apply to the states?

Because it's the Federal Constitution, hence it applies to the federal government. States have their own constitutions by which to govern themselves.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
So you are saying that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was NOT to guarantee the right to bear arms for all law-abiding citizens?

The original intent was to guarantee that the federal government would not prevent citizens from owning firearms.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19584 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3370 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Imagine that - the USSC had to rule that the Bill of Rights actually DOES apply to everyone in the country. The shocking thing is that 4 judges (admittedly liberals) actually voted against it. Had the decision gone the other way, that would have opened the door to local officials overruling other rights, such as the freedom of speech or any other right we now take for granted.

This? Out of Mr. "States Rights"?

Only when it suits you, huh...?


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3365 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):

As it pertains to the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court had already stated that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." In other words, the states could flatly ignore the Second Amendment at their leisure. (See US v. Cruikshank)

Intersting case - and an excellent example of how the law can be perverted. The USSC must have been made up of Klansmen.

This ruling is a slap in the face of US v. Cruikshank, and rightfully so.

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
And as I've tried to tell you, the states were not bound, nor were they intended to be bound, by the Bill of Rights. You need to wrap your brain around that thought.

And you need to understand that the Bill of Rights was not intended to be optional. The 2nd amendment is as sacrosanct as the 1st amendment, and I'm sure you'd raise holy hell if a state decided that mediamatters and other left wing opinion sources would be blocked.

Your argument makes no sense - regardless as to whether previous justices agree with you. You are saying that the Bill of Rights is not binding on states. Maybe by some perversion of logic that can be argued. But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written by human beings, not lawyers, and while their language might not have been the most precise in the world, the intentions within it are clear.

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
Let's remember why the 14th amendment was written. One of the main reasons was to ensure that southern states, just after the civil war, stopped denying freed slaves the right to own guns

UTTER BULL. THE reason for the 14th Amendment was to give all persons (including blacks) the same rights and due process. Note the absence of the word "arms" in the amendment. The arms argument is an argument that just suddenly showed up recently.
Quote:
The most explicit evidence of Congress’ aim appears in§14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which provided that “the right . . . to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens . . . without respect to race or color, or previ-ous condition of slavery.” 14 Stat. 176–177 (emphasis added).22 Section 14 thus explicitly guaranteed that “all the citizens,” black and white, would have “the constitutional right to bear arms.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, which was considered at the same time as the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, similarly sought to protect the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms.23 Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act guaranteed the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Ibid. This language was virtually identical to language in §14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, 14 Stat. 176–177 (“the right . . . to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal”). And as noted, the latter provision went on to explain that one of the “laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal” was “the constitutional right to bear arms.” Ibid. Representative Bingham believed that the Civil Rights Act protected the same rights as enumerated in the Freedmen’s Bureau bill,which of course explicitly mentioned the right to keep and bear arms. 39th Cong. Globe 1292. The unavoidable conclusion is that the Civil Rights Act, like the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, aimed to protect “the constitutional right to bear arms” and not simply to prohibit discrimination. See also Amar, Bill of Rights 264–265 (noting that one of the“core purposes of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and of the Fourteenth Amendment was to redress the grievances” of freedmen who had been stripped of their arms and to“affirm the full and equal right of every citizen to self-defense”).
Congress, however, ultimately deemed these legislative remedies insufficient. Southern resistance, Presidential vetoes, and this Court’s pre-Civil-War precedent persuaded Congress that a constitutional amendment was necessary to provide full protection for the rights of blacks.24 Today, it is generally accepted that the Four-teenth Amendment was understood to provide a constitutional basis for protecting the rights set out in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. See General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U. S. 375, 389 (1982); see also Amar, Bill of Rights 187; Calabresi, Two Cheers for Professor Balkin’s Originalism, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 663, 669–670 (2009).
In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Senator Sam-uel Pomeroy described three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.” 39th Cong.Globe 1182. One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms:
“Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his home-stead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete.” Ibid.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19584 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):

And as I've tried to tell you, the states were not bound, nor were they intended to be bound, by the Bill of Rights. You need to wrap your brain around that thought.

OMG! Role reversal!

This is hilarious! When it's liberals, it's items 1,4,5,etc. that defy states rights. When it's conservatives, it's #2.

Folks, the ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS applies to all the states. And that's why this admittedly left-leaning, anti-gun man is very pro-2nd amendment. Because if we get rid of that one, then what's to stop us from getting rid of the ones I like?


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3353 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):
This is hilarious! When it's liberals, it's items 1,4,5,etc. that defy states rights. When it's conservatives, it's #2.

Folks, the ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS applies to all the states. And that's why this admittedly left-leaning, anti-gun man is very pro-2nd amendment. Because if we get rid of that one, then what's to stop us from getting rid of the ones I like?

I don't see the role reversal. We are talking about something expressly mentioned in the Constitution, which even the most ardent of states-rights advocates will say that is within federal jurisdiction. Where we raise states' rights issues with are programs and laws that do not have any mention in the Constitution, such as unemployment benefits or medical insurance.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19584 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3342 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):

I don't see the role reversal. We are talking about something expressly mentioned in the Constitution, which even the most ardent of states-rights advocates will say that is within federal jurisdiction. Where we raise states' rights issues with are programs and laws that do not have any mention in the Constitution, such as unemployment benefits or medical insurance.

Or gay marriage. Oh wait, that pesky equal protection clause is in the Constitution isn't it? But suddenly it's an issue of States rights.


25 Dreadnought : Unless a constitutional amendment is passed, I would say that marriage is a state issue. And I don't see how equal protection applies - everyone has
26 futurepilot16 : I agree with the supreme court ruling. I saw a report on the News earlier this year about a senior citizen in Chicago who could not protect himself ag
27 D L X : Sigh. You can't be reached on this, so I'm going to stop trying. I've pointed you to the correct information. I can't make you accept it. It's not my
28 Post contains images mayor : Are you sure this is the best source to quote, considering their reputation for errors? I got this from another source and it seems to say that the s
29 D L X : Considering that it aligns with what is taught in every constitutional law class at every law school, I think it's at least good enough for a primer.
30 EA772LR : Congrats for all Americans. This is great news no matter how the Left wants to down play it. It was simply unconstitutional to outright ban guns. The
31 D L X : That doesn't make it unconstitutional. This is not a logical argument. This also doesn't make it unconstitutional. I hope you have some evidence of w
32 mayor : I don't have the figures right in front of me, but I do know that in Chicago and DC, the crime rate went UP. Coincidental, eh? Are not citizens of th
33 Post contains links and images futurepilot16 : If you want to talk legality, let's talk how legal it is for state lawmakers to take away the rights of U.S. Citizens, these same rights that form th
34 Post contains links and images EA772LR : Forbidding the citizens in places like Chicago and D.C. from being allowed keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. Did I say it was? No. I said it ma
35 Post contains links Dreadnought : Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes. Americans for Gun Safety produced a 2003 report that r
36 D L X : Geebus dude, go read the case. Don't ask me for my opinion when I point you to the opinion of the United States Supreme Court. Sheesh! Pretty conveni
37 Post contains images FlyASAGuy2005 : I usually tread very lightly when it comes to that. As we see today, the federal government is much more strict on these "gun laws" than the states.
38 Post contains links Dreadnought : According to the New York Times, the law worked, and crime went down (even allowing for the NYT's watering down of the results. http://www.nytimes.co
39 Post contains images D L X : Have you read ANY of the sources I gave you? Do you need me to mail you a constitutional law textbook? Easy way to understand it. I invite you over f
40 Dreadnought : Like I said, I do not conside legal eggheads to be any sort of authority. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written in plain english so tha
41 Post contains images FlyASAGuy2005 : {checkmark] Totally different issue and I have had people argue this point with me numerous times. Just as today, I carry everywhere but there are so
42 futurepilot16 : Dude, you're comparing personally feelings about guns, to state and federal laws. If you choose not to have guns in your house, or on your property,
43 Post contains links N1120A : The second line here clearly demonstrates why D L X keeps on saying that you really need to educate yourself on the Constitution and constitutional j
44 OA412 : Question for everyone on here who is attacking D L X because his views contradict their own interpretation of the constitution? How many of you actual
45 N1120A : Arm chair lawyers are a bit like arm chair quarterbacks, only with less actual knowledge on the subject and the belief that they have much more than
46 Dreadnought : Irrelevant. I don't care what some judge said - half of them are idiots. I want the law of the land to be 1) The Constitution with amendments as adde
47 dxing : But wasn't the Chicago law saying that you could not even keep one in your home? How does the city of Chicago have any control over my personal prope
48 N1120A : Well, then you are never going to get it. Ever heard of the treaty power? Administrative law (you buddy Scalia and his Chevron Doctrine)? How about t
49 Post contains images D L X : Because you're smarter then they? Or you just don't listen to people who come to a different conclusion than you? Because really, what I'm hearing fr
50 dxing : There are federal laws against the possesion of cocaine, murder, and I believe even rape as it would fall under a violation of your civil rights corr
51 Dreadnought : Because 1) The Constitution was written in English, and means what it says, 2) Lawyers have taken over this country and perverted the Constitution, c
52 D L X : If I made a sign that said "No Diving," does that mean you can't dive? That's an incomplete question isn't it? Don't you need to know more about the
53 N1120A : Oh really? What do you think most of the drafters did for a living? Tell that to a judge. Constitution = Law Lawyer = Someone who works in the law be
54 Dreadnought : I prefer Douglas' definition: A bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Alternatively, I would desc
55 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Maybe incorrigible would be a better adjective... I'm not really big into law myself but calling lawyers apocryphal is going a bit too far IMHO. ..bu
56 Dreadnought : Exactly my point. Laws are NOT laws in this country. In Switzerland they are. Here they are nothing but suggestions, and able to be twisted in any sh
57 Jacobin777 : That would be a bit too dogmatic for me. Who's to say the laws made in Switzerland were correct in the first place?
58 Post contains links PPVRA : A bad ruling, and I support gun rights. Here's a good intro class as to why this is a bad decision. . http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=50858383
59 Yellowstone : Are you really trying to argue that there is absolutely zero ambiguity in every single sentence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? And there's y
60 NorthstarBoy : I think the problem is that most schools probably teach government from a Hamiltonian point of view, which believes that the federal government super
61 D L X : It's pretty funny, isn't it that the argument that I'm presenting is an extremely federalist, conservative viewpoint. But the modern Republican doesn
62 ATCtower : There really isn't a whole lot behind this other than common sense, but why is it the bleeding heart liberals here will fight this unequivocally, and
63 Dreadnought : I've needed lawyers before. How the hell do you think I've arrived at the point that I've realized that they cannot be trusted? By experience, both p
64 dxing : No, actually you changed the context. You gave examples of how Chicago could limit what I have or do in my home and I showed how those things were al
65 D L X : Dodged! But at least you now recognize that context is important. The Constitution says "The Constitution of the United States of America." It does n
66 Dreadnought : Th directors are bound by the company's by-laws, and basically that is what the Constitution is. Sorry, but I find the argument that the Bill of Righ
67 D L X : Well then you are putting your head in the sand and ignoring all the evidence that you are wrong. The Constitution was a set of rules by which the FE
68 futurepilot16 : Oh ok. But you can argue that the language in the constitution forces the gov't to not take away your rights, and give you your rights promised by th
69 dl021 : I don't know if this gets' lost in the whole thread, but I'll reprint my PM to you on this same question... Hi, read your point about people in your
70 Dreadnought : Agreed - it happens on both sides. Here is where I have issues with the dissent. One of the reasons for the dissent is the claim that easing gun rest
71 Yellowstone : Not quite - I'm saying that the states weren't bound by amendments to the Constitution, until the SCOTUS decided that each individual right listed in
72 dl021 : I agree with you...looking at the illegal immigrant policies and debates in this country we see the hypocrisy and willing suspension of legal process
73 Yellowstone : The sentence is a compound sentence - the reference to "Court of the United States" is only in the second part. Breaking it up into two sentences, we
74 Maverick623 : No, he is better educated on case law. The Constitution is in plain English. Just because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on a particular merit doesn'
75 PPVRA : For all you legal experts: could nullification be attempted in this case? Would be the first time in a long time. . .
76 futurepilot16 : So what makes voting a fundamental right and gun rights not a fundamental right? What is your meaning of fundamental rights? Are willing to say that
77 Post contains images OA412 : I won't even bother answering the question you asked about why a country should even have a constitution. The reason that I stated that simply having
78 Dreadnought : You a lawyer?
79 N1120A : Do you know anything about the history of the legal profession and legal education? Let's just say it has evolved significantly since 1791. That said
80 ATCtower : It is not a matter of a difference in laws, it is a matter of one vying for or against a states individual right as so many liberals will claim. How
81 WarRI1 : Correct, and hypocrisy is rampant in the illegal immigrant debate. I am appalled at the level of it, from both sides of the aisle. How can we selecti
82 102IAHexpress : You could take a course on Justice Black and barely scratch the surface of Mr. Black's life. It's hard to wrap my mind around this but he was a membe
83 Yellowstone : You can't have a functioning democratic government that follows the will of the people without the right to vote. You can have one without the right
84 Maverick623 : You should. Because you apparently believe that judges can ignore entire sections of the Constitution because they don't agree with the politics behi
85 Yellowstone : The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to be the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. Prior to June 28, the Constitution gua
86 Maverick623 : I understand that. However, it's wrong to think that one can change the meaning of the phrase "shall not". Yes it did; this recent Supreme Court case
87 D L X : It's not hypocrisy. The difference (before 2010) was that states were preempted by the federal government by the US Constitution from making immigrat
88 D L X : WHO shall not? That's the question that everyone that is fighting me on this board hasn't answered. Where does the amendment state WHO? For context,
89 N1120A : Ok, so get the Constitution amended. Good luck finding 2/3rd of each chamber and 3/4ths of the states to ratify a direct amendment on the Bill of Rig
90 D L X : You know, nullification basically means ignoring the command to desegregate. That's a pretty nasty word to toss around. No, it will not be attempted.
91 N1120A : Blatant defiance of the Supreme Court of the United States generally ends with federal troops being sent in to enforce the mandate. This would be an
92 D L X : Yours and Maverick's is a very simplistic view of law, let alone constitutional law. You cannot read a sentence in a vaccuum and think you know what
93 dl021 : How about this? "First thing we do is kill all the lawyers" Shakespeare (in Henry VI)
94 dl021 : Is that not basically what I said? The first part, not the second.
95 dl021 : In which European nations are there laws forbidding ownership of firearms? (not restricting use or type, but flat out preventing ownership)?
96 D L X : Right. NOW, what was the context of that quote? The context is that the speakers wanted insurrection, and the lawyers were the only ones that they fe
97 pilotsmoe : So I guess it's constitutional for the government to require me to buy a product or service then?
98 Post contains images EA772LR : Yep. The Democrats wanted the illegals' votes, and the Republicans wanted cheap labor. George Washington once warned of the dangers of having politic
99 D L X : On this, I couldn't agree with you more. I actually don't believe I experience this lack of respect you speak of.
100 NoUFO : Hm, learned something interesting today. Thanks.
101 Post contains links dxing : By attempting to change the context to something more easily defendable. Sure they do. The majority opinion in both cases, Washington's as well as Ch
102 D L X : Because the only way that it would apply to the states would be if the 14th Amendment said it did. That's the manner in which all other amendments wh
103 N1120A : This is actually even MORE true in the pure civil law systems that Dreadnought claims he craves. Nope. You can own firearms in England. There are sig
104 EA772LR : D L X there's no denying that trust in politicians and lawyers only goes so far with most people. They have reputations they've earned. I'm not sayin
105 Post contains links dxing : Chicago, and lets be frank by that means Mayor Daley, is a big proponent of strict gun laws. After the decision he said: http://www.nbcchicago.com/bl
106 EA772LR : What the hell qualifies as an assault weapon?? A military-style rifle like and AK or AR? I'm pretty sure all weapons could be assault weapons if used
107 N1120A : Lets look at some politicians with heavy influence on the current state of the US and their occupations: 1) George W. Bush - No real occupation other
108 DocLightning : Actually, it didn't apply to all the states. That's why there could be slavery in some but not the others. Slavery is a violation of most of the poin
109 Post contains images dxing : Yes you did. As you are now trying to make the argument about what you did or did not do. Not that old saw again. I find it humorous that liberals ca
110 N1120A : Not until this week. We generally know what they meant. Back then, we had an extensive system of local para-military militias that could be drafted i
111 D L X : You bring up a great point. The Second Amendment says "shall not be abridged" but it doesn't say anything about Slaves. So, could slaves have guns? I
112 EA772LR : 7 examples out of how many?? I'd be willing to bet you the number of politicians who hold degrees in law is higher than the numbers of politicians wh
113 Dreadnought : For better or worse, slaves were not considered citizens back then. Free blacks were, however, mainly in the northern states, and had the same rights
114 D L X : yeah, but how do you know that they didn't have second amendment rights? You didn't have to be a citizen to have rights.
115 Dreadnought : Let's be clearer. They weren't considered human - contradictory since freedmen were considered full citizens. While most of the founders were aboliti
116 dxing : I couldn't disagree with you more on that point. The founding fathers knew well what sort of opposition an unarmed populace presented to a government
117 mayor : Well, unless any of the members of the Supreme Court are here on A.net, I guess I have to ask you, don't I? Besides, asking a laymen to read a legal
118 Maverick623 : Have you ever worked in a job where management would make insanely complicated rules, just to ensure that you didn't know what's going on so they cou
119 ATCtower : Get real. Is your name private? Address? Date of birth? All of which are compulsory and to be provided upon request from a law enforcement officer. W
120 Yellowstone : You're picking on the wrong phrase. "No state shall" is very clear. "Due process" is fuzzy. That was the issue the court had to rule on - was the rig
121 Maverick623 : Thank you for pointing that out. It seems that others would rather throw out the uneducated, non-elite card than make any rational arguments. At any
122 102IAHexpress : They do have a point though. You really have to understand the history of the text before you can even have a rational debate about it. Reading the t
123 dl021 : You'd be surprised....they severely restrict handguns but there's a lot of firearms out there. Amen things never do change...do they? Dude, that's wh
124 D L X : Not true. They were considered "other persons," which are in contrast with "free persons." Article I section 3. This is another example of why you ha
125 Jacobin777 : Apologies if this was mentioned previously, but where can I read (find) it?
126 Post contains links D L X : Here's the wiki Incorporation article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
127 N1120A : Remember that the word "state" has multiple meanings. You are not at all correct. The AZ law does not ensure equal protection because it encourages r
128 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Thanks!
129 Yellowstone : Yep! If a cop stops you and asks to see identification, the correct response is "Am I being detained?" If the answer is "no," politely decline to sho
130 PPVRA : Nullification was used for good too, like refusing to enforce fugitive slave laws. It's not a nasty concept despite what it is unfortunately often as
131 N1120A : Except that Post-Dred Scott, such nullification wasn't really used. Of course it is a nasty concept. It is always a nasty concept to crap on the high
132 Post contains images dl021 : Totally different subject than OP intent...but I don't think they're acting as vigilantes if they're passing laws and acting within their own laws. A
133 Post contains images N1120A : Junior? Hard to be junior when you are the boss . No I'm not. I was quoting Justice Powell. I didn't start it, and it does have clear application to
134 PPVRA : The whole idea of nullification is to block decisions a state believes is unconstitutional; it's more like crapping on those who crapped on the law o
135 N1120A : States don't get to determine what is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court does. If they did, we would be in Canada and they would get 5 years to scre
136 dl021 : What....are you 12? I didn't say you weren't quoting, but a lot of people quote stuff with the intent of sensationalizing in order to lend emphasis t
137 N1120A : Not at all. It is what it is.
138 RJ111 : A reasonable amount, but very few owners. About 1% of people. Possession and use in public is extremely prohibitive.
139 Maverick623 : Which I do. Thanks. How so? The Constitution and first ten Amendments were basically the Magna Charta written with an 18th century mindset. You have
140 N1120A : I believe DL021 was also including long guns in that. It doesn't appear so. You just made that up. Completely and totally. Riiiight. Because the poli
141 RJ111 : As was I. In fact, probably 99% of the firearms here are long guns.
142 Maverick623 : Because you can totally tell someone's educational history by their postings on an aviation-related message board? No, the Supreme Court did. So beca
143 Post contains links Maverick623 : Looks like Chicago was prepared for this ruling: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/02/illinois.gun.ban/index.html?hpt=T2 Surprisingly, I can agree with
144 DeltaMD90 : I'm pro gun, but I do agree that people need some type of education. How that is mandated, I don't know, but I've seen some stupid people do some stup
145 Post contains images OA412 : No, and I'm sure you gathered as much from my responses. Since I'm not a lawyer, I prefer to defer to the legal experts who actually understand the C
146 Maverick623 : Right here: Since some of us didn't pay an obscene amount of money to have a professor do our research for us or tell us how to do it, you assume tha
147 Post contains links AKiss20 : http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1719257620070418
148 Dreadnought : My employer is transferring me to Kennessaw in about 6 months YES!!!
149 102IAHexpress : Ridiculous? You're comments in this thread are making me laugh so much it makes my side hurt. You remind of a quote... When you have the law on your
150 AKiss20 : So suddenly it is good that the government mandates that you purchase a good or service?
151 MSPNWA : 1. Local law, so at the very least it's on the same level as the Chicago ban. 2. The Constitution does not say you have the right to NOT own a gun. 3
152 Dreadnought : If it's local, it's OK because you have a choice to live in another town 3 miles away. If it's state, not so good, but you still have a choice. If it
153 dl021 : In re the Kennesaw ordinance.....people are exempted if they have a conscientious objection, and there has not been any instance of enforcement since
154 Post contains images engineergreg : It's true that the Governor of Texas has less power than most governors, but is still more than a figurehead. GWB did have SOME executive experience
155 D L X : GIven your dogged and often obstinate arguments on this thread, I'm shocked to hear you say this. All along, I've been saying how Chicago should be a
156 Post contains links dl021 : I know Kennesaw very well, I'm from Atlanta, and at the time of the laws passing it was an outlying town. It's now a suburb/bedroom community. And "C
157 N1120A : No. Because you can totally tell their educational history by their inability to understand basic level issues, and then they call people "elitist" f
158 Dreadnought : I consider the Kennessaw law to be empowerment of its citizens by insisting that their rights are exercized, whereas the Chicago law was disempowerme
159 D L X : So then you're completely backtracking on your original position that it was okay because it was local? You flip flop more than John Kerry. This whol
160 Maverick623 : Source? And let's break that one down too: You forget that if someone challenges their detention under this law, the officer has to be able to specif
161 Dreadnought : They can, except when running contrary to the Constitution. Telling people that they should be armed is not unconstitutional. It does not necessarily
162 102IAHexpress : False. Where do you come up with this stuff? If you are 18 or older you are required to keep your "green card" with you at all times. That does not m
163 D L X : This all reminds me of some of the darkest days in our American history. Before the Emancipation Proclamation, free blacks (as in, full United States
164 PPVRA : Yeah the Kennesaw ordinance is not enforced. I've been there several times and know gun-less people who live there. Like the article said, it was just
165 Maverick623 : Indeed, however: When SB1070 goes into effect, you will be required to show it to any police officer in the state (not just MCSO deputies, with whom
166 dl021 : Many people often assume that the people with whom they disagree are wrong and perhaps even less intelligent because they can't figure out what is im
167 cws818 : The Constitution set up the Supreme Court to examine constitutional issues. It is not unreasonable to infer that the Constitution anticipated that la
168 Maverick623 : Well, by definition, yes. Adverbs are modifiers. In this case, 'potentially' takes an absolute and makes it, well, not absolute. (Not saying I'm agre
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Supreme Court Rules 1st Amendment Unconstitutional posted Wed Dec 10 2003 17:37:07 by B757300
Study On Correlation Between Gun Laws And Crime posted Tue Dec 23 2008 13:39:55 by Eaa3
Supreme Court Hearing Arguments On Abortion Law posted Thu Nov 9 2006 15:30:18 by AerospaceFan
Court Rules Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutional posted Tue Nov 18 2003 17:36:03 by Delta777-XXX
Obama To Nominate Kagan To Supreme Court. posted Sun May 9 2010 19:22:29 by fxramper
Justice Stevens Retiring From US Supreme Court posted Fri Apr 9 2010 08:06:26 by texan
Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama? posted Fri Feb 19 2010 17:59:53 by ken777
United Against Supreme Court Decision. posted Wed Feb 17 2010 17:54:35 by WarRI1
Supreme Court Halts Chrysler Sale To Fiat posted Mon Jun 8 2009 14:38:56 by Sv7887
Obama To Nominate Sotomayor For Supreme Court posted Tue May 26 2009 07:21:22 by Homer71