NorthSideSox72 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 So, after the DC handgun ban was overturned, numerous people sued various municipalities and states claiming that their bans, too, are unconstitutional. SCOTUS has just said they will hear some cases on this, and Chicago is #1 on the list. Linky. Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 thought this would happen. Also, was kind of annoyed that the SC is continuing to take such vague stands that open it up to case by case rulings. Surely they can come up with SOME standard to apply here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share Posted September 30, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 01:02 PM) thought this would happen. Also, was kind of annoyed that the SC is continuing to take such vague stands that open it up to case by case rulings. Surely they can come up with SOME standard to apply here. I wrote some papers on various implication of 2A, back in college. Part of the reason SCOTUS avoided 2A cases like the plague for so many decades, and why they are so vague on it now, is that the most clear interperetations of 2A would result in jurisprudence that would be unacceptable to most everyone. As in the Miller case, it was stated that, taken to its full extent, 2A by nature actually protects all including the most powerful of weapons. But I don't think anyone (well, almost anyone) wants people to have tanks and bazookas. This means that any specific stand taken is, in essence, legislating from the bench, and would be labeled as "activist" or otherwise panned by one or both parties politically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 06:05 PM) This means that any specific stand taken is, in essence, legislating from the bench, and would be labeled as "activist" or otherwise panned by one or both parties politically. Of things I absolutely don't care about, the quote above. Clearly the lawmakers at local/state/fed level are looking for some guidance on what is constitutional and what isn't. In other words, do your job. Setting standards can help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Yeah, but they're appointed for life so that they aren't pressured by politics so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 01:02 PM) thought this would happen. Also, was kind of annoyed that the SC is continuing to take such vague stands that open it up to case by case rulings. Surely they can come up with SOME standard to apply here. That's a bigger issue then just 2A cases, for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 06:14 PM) Yeah, but they're appointed for life so that they aren't pressured by politics so much. how is this pressured by politics, they ignored an issue for years because it was too hard and so state/local/fed gov'ts ran wild not caring, they basically just punted for years, and now they are going to punt again. They are supposed to interpret the constitution. So do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 11:24 AM) how is this pressured by politics, they ignored an issue for years because it was too hard and so state/local/fed gov'ts ran wild not caring, they basically just punted for years, and now they are going to punt again. They are supposed to interpret the constitution. So do it. Frankly, I don't think this court is going to punt again. I get the general impression that the people on this court realize that this is probably the most conservative court we'll see for the next 50 years, and if there is ever going to be law made from the conservative side, this is their chance. I think the Roberts 4 will push things as far as they can possibly go without getting Kennedy to vote against them, and they'll then defy everyone that follows to overturn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts