PDA

View Full Version : We need our own "Roe v Wade" for gun rights...


tygerpaw
02-28-2006, 8:14 AM
The NRA, CRPA and other gun organizations need to find someway to get before the SCOTUS to get our own "Roe v. Wade" case. Its incredible that there is a supposed "right" for a woman to kill her baby in the first amendment, which makes no mention of it whatsover. Yet according to court precedent, the Second amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own firearms. Maybe the new make up of the court will allow a case to come before it. Also, John Paul Stevens is 85, how much longer could he last?

shopkeep
02-28-2006, 9:51 AM
The NRA, CRPA and other gun organizations need to find someway to get before the SCOTUS to get our own "Roe v. Wade" case. Its incredible that there is a supposed "right" for a woman to kill her baby in the first amendment, which makes no mention of it whatsover. Yet according to court precedent, the Second amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own firearms. Maybe the new make up of the court will allow a case to come before it. Also, John Paul Stevens is 85, how much longer could he last?

Not to be morbid but I REALLY HOPE we get him out of there before the Dems can get someone into the court. Although this would not be a disaster though, given Stevens is already pretty far to the left for a Republican. Just think though, how awesome it would be to get someone in there as hardcore as Roberts or Alito!

If you ask me putting Roberts in there as chief justice was pure genious! The guy is only 49 so we'll get him for at least 30 more years now!

leelaw
02-28-2006, 10:00 AM
Roe v. Wade is such a terrible comparison.. It is such a weak argument, it is likely to be overruled soon. I see your point, but that's a poor argument..

EBWhite
02-28-2006, 10:03 AM
The only reason Row Vs. wade holds such a precedent is not court rulings but the high public outcry of support for it.

Mesa Tactical
02-28-2006, 10:47 AM
Be careful what you wish for. The SCOTUS has in recent years been increasingly restrictive of civil rights. There's no reason to believe they would be any friendlier to the Second Amendment than they have been to the First, Fourth or Fifth.

When's the last time anyone ever won an appeal citing the Second Amendment?

bbq_ribs
02-28-2006, 11:15 AM
"supposed "right" for a woman to kill her baby in the first amendment, "

Now if that isn't an inflammatory statement, i dunno what is. :P

Please, folks.. let's not devolve into a huge debate about abortion and what it is & isn't. Let this be one of the few forums that I visit that doesn't turn into a huge faith-based flamewar.

That's all i ask!

*puts on asbestos suit*

shecky
02-28-2006, 11:21 AM
Be careful what you wish for.


I agree. Alito and Roberts seem strong on granting presidential powers, possibly weakening other civil rights. Possibly strong on state's rights, which wouldn't really help gun rights in CA.

And even if Roe v Wade is overturned, the notion that the "right to privacy" may be found definitively unconstitutional, seems rather disturbing.

brando
02-28-2006, 11:52 AM
It's a 14th Ammendment issue, not a Right to Choose, but a Right to Person Privacy. Your being gay, your being a religious nut, your being an atheist, your abortion - is none of my business, according to the Constitution.

slo5oh
02-28-2006, 12:08 PM
The only reason Row Vs. wade holds such a precedent is not court rulings but the high public outcry of support for it.

There's a comedian that pokes fun at this case. You know the court case took so long she was not able to abort her own child... I'll bet she told him "I really didn't want you!" a lot.
I wonder what his views are on this case.

tygerpaw
02-28-2006, 12:54 PM
"supposed "right" for a woman to kill her baby in the first amendment, "

Now if that isn't an inflammatory statement, i dunno what is. :P

Please, folks.. let's not devolve into a huge debate about abortion and what it is & isn't. Let this be one of the few forums that I visit that doesn't turn into a huge faith-based flamewar.

That's all i ask!

*puts on asbestos suit*

What about about that statement is not true? How does a woman have an abortion and not kill her baby? And what does faith have to do with anything? You dont know anything about my faith, I never mentioned faith. This isnt supposed to be an abortion debate anyway, just pointing out a difference between a court ruling that gives a right where none is given in the constitution to a potential ruling that would confirm a right that IS in the constitution.

I think in a perfect world, we would have the right to own what ever firearm we want, so long as we have not committed a crime to lose that right. I would even have no problem with background checks and registration if we could be sure it would not lead to confiscation. I dont want criminals and mentally ill people having firearms any more than the most liberal liberal.

blacklisted
02-28-2006, 12:59 PM
What about about that statement is not true? How does a woman have an abortion and not kill her baby? And what does faith have to do with anything? You dont know anything about my faith, I never mentioned faith. This isnt supposed to be an abortion debate anyway, just pointing out a difference between a court ruling that gives a right where none is given in the constitution to a potential ruling that would confirm a right that IS in the constitution.

I think in a perfect world, we would have the right to own what ever firearm we want, so long as we have not committed a crime to lose that right. I would even have no problem with background checks and registration if we could be sure it would not lead to confiscation. I dont want criminals and mentally ill people having firearms any more than the most liberal liberal.

The most liberal liberal would include "ADD" and some other overdiagnosed condition as a mental illness that prevents firearm ownership. ;)

I know what you are saying. We do need a FAVORABLE supreme court ruling on the second amendment. And unfavorable one could be disastrous.

taloft
03-01-2006, 1:33 AM
I seriously doubt that we will ever be in a better political position to deal with the 2nd Amendment issue than we are right now. The Supreme Court, Congress, and the President are all on the same band wagon. If they are going to make a move to insure our gun rights, now is the time. We should grab the NRA by the short and curlies until they swear to get the ball rolling.

bbq_ribs
03-01-2006, 6:54 AM
What about about that statement is not true? How does a woman have an abortion and not kill her baby? And what does faith have to do with anything?.

Many anti-abortion advocates consider even the 'morning after' pill, which does nothing but prevent the egg from implanting itself into the uterus lining to be a form of abortion. Medically speaking, it's nowhere close. That's not 'killing a baby' at all because at that point, it's not a baby at all.

My point was that many many many times when someone even mentions the word 'abortion' on a web forum, it devolves into a total flame war. This is a cool place, and I just didn't want to see things start turning sour. I wasn't trying to offend you, so sorry if I did.

bbq_ribs
03-01-2006, 6:57 AM
I know what you are saying. We do need a FAVORABLE supreme court ruling on the second amendment. And unfavorable one could be disastrous.

Absolutely 100% right on. We don't need the Supreme Court wasting time with Anna Nicole Smith, we need them to finally address the issue of our Second Amendment. Many states already have it in their constitution and life has gone on just fine. Time to make it Federal.

MrTuffPaws
03-01-2006, 12:55 PM
I think the OP is confused. The 1st has nothing to do with RvW. If any amendment gives the right to an abortion, or self defense, or anything else that is not specifically stated in the constitution of the Feds and the States is the 9th

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

ldivinag
03-01-2006, 1:53 PM
Silveira vs. Lockyer, No. 03-51, challenging the constitutionality of the California assault weapons ban and went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The black robes chose not to hear the case.

kinda ironic, that the anna nicole smith case (20something marries an 80something gazzillionaire and when he dies, she wants all the money; his kids sued) is being heard by the SCOTUS....

Kruzr
03-01-2006, 2:48 PM
kinda ironic, that the anna nicole smith case (20something marries an 80something gazzillionaire and when he dies, she wants all the money; his kids sued) is being heard by the SCOTUS....
Her case is whether a federal appeals court has jurisdicition over a state probate ruling. Other than it involves her, I see no other irony.