Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-16-2019, 7:59 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,981
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default John Paul Stevens, "The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure" (Heller)

Liberal's tears.... Enjoy!

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ontrol/587272/
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-16-2019, 8:19 AM
GreggieBoy's Avatar
GreggieBoy GreggieBoy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 708
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Yeah Stevens needs to look beyond his political beliefs.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Proud Member of the Gun Culture
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-16-2019, 8:42 AM
Fastattack's Avatar
Fastattack Fastattack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North Central Arizona (formerly So Cal)
Posts: 798
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Scary that so many smart, powerful people believe this nonsense. Hanging all his logic on the preamble and missing the main clause of the right of 'the people' entirely. In essence, saying it is a right granted to the government and not the people. Try explaining the Bill of Rights and telling folks that the 2A is different and doesn't apply to 'the people' yet all the others do. Yeah, preaching to the choir, I know ...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-16-2019, 8:52 AM
PennypackPete PennypackPete is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 22
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Kennedy regrets that he "failed to emphasize sufficiently the human aspects of the issue as providing unanswerable support for the stare decisis argument for affirmance."

That sounds to me like he wanted a particular outcome (the "human" aspects, to protect the people from themselves) rather that a decision based on the intent of the constitution as written.

Clearly he is a believer in a "living breathing constitution," rather than a strict constitution that protects the people from the government.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-16-2019, 8:59 AM
hermosabeach's Avatar
hermosabeach hermosabeach is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,612
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default Bull

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Throughout most of American history there was no federal objection to laws regulating the civilian use of firearms. When I joined the Supreme Court in 1975, both state and federal judges accepted the Court’s unanimous decision in United States v. Miller as having established that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms was possessed only by members of the militia and applied only to weapons used by the militia

in Miller- Miller was a dirt poor moonshiner.... Miller won

On appeal, the government won - Miller was a no show - he was never contacted so he had no idea the G men were trying to go after him again


Horrible case law.....

This judge also feels the Jim Crow laws to disarm black was OK
__________________




“Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you.”
— Neil deGrasse Tyson
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-16-2019, 9:58 AM
aklon's Avatar
aklon aklon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Leandro, Alameda County
Posts: 2,337
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

You can affirm the 2A in the courts or it will be affirmed in the streets.

It just takes 3% of us.
__________________
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see."
- Arthur Schopenhaur
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:02 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,010
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastattack View Post
Scary that so many smart, powerful people believe this nonsense. Hanging all his logic on the preamble and missing the main clause of the right of 'the people' entirely. In essence, saying it is a right granted to the government and not the people. Try explaining the Bill of Rights and telling folks that the 2A is different and doesn't apply to 'the people' yet all the others do. Yeah, preaching to the choir, I know ...
They dont believe it, which is scarier than if they did believe it.

They know it is garbage, and they dont care.

They know roe v wade is a crap opinion, but they do not care.

They put ideology over integrity.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:23 AM
Fastattack's Avatar
Fastattack Fastattack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North Central Arizona (formerly So Cal)
Posts: 798
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
They dont believe it, which is scarier than if they did believe it.

They know it is garbage, and they dont care.

They know roe v wade is a crap opinion, but they do not care.

They put ideology over integrity.
You might be correct, in terms of the elites (although not all), but my experience is that the low-information voter actually buys this s&!t spewed by them. I've had arguments with several people and they get real quiet when I point out the obvious.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:27 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,010
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastattack View Post
You might be correct, in terms of the elites (although not all), but my experience is that the low-information voter actually buys this s&!t spewed by them. I've had arguments with several people and they get real quiet when I point out the obvious.
Oh, yeah, i agree.

I was speaking about guys like Stevens.

No question he knows. He just doesnt care.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-17-2019, 7:17 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 13,238
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Apparently Roberts is incorrect. There are Bush, Clinton, Obama and Trump judges, each is a political animal with political agendas.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-17-2019, 7:43 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,781
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The treason, dishonesty, and hatred on the left seems unbounded.

His argument comes in two points:
  1. SCOTUS has never ruled that it's an individual right before
  2. It's a bad public policy

Let's analyze this for a moment.

All the other rights of "the people" in Constitution are individual rights. The only collective rights in the const. are rights given to entities that were incorporated at the time: the states. If they had wanted to make it a collective right they would have said, "the right of the states to keep weapons of war" or something like that. Does he think that some of the other rights, like the 1A, are collective? "No, you're not allowed to say that. Only a state-approved press organization is allowed to say things like that." Hahaha. Maybe the right to freedom of religion is collective? "Yes you're free to practice any state-organized religion."

Now on to #2, which is a doozy...

MANY constitutional rights are inconvenient. Police would definitely be more effective if they were not burdened by all these nonsense restrictions on search and seizure and warrants. And trials by jury, what an annoyance! There are career criminals and gang members that we can't lock up because jury trials are so inconvenient. We would all be safer if the police could be given a freer hand in taking bad people off the streets. Those pesky constitutional rights are getting in the way of public safety!

In fact, gun ownership doesn't correlate at all with public safety. Unfortunately what correlates with public safety are certain factors liberals are afraid to discuss.
__________________
learn to code
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-17-2019, 9:00 AM
rp55's Avatar
rp55 rp55 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,800
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

The confusion arises because of the changing over time of the use of the word militia. They did not define it the constitution because they assumed it was common knowledge. Look at the state constitutions of the original 13 states that were in effect at the time and they all define it. The National Guard is not the militia. The California State Military Reserve is not the militia.

In fact, if we check California law we see ...

Military and Veterans Code - MVC
DIVISION 2. THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE STATE
PART 1. THE STATE MILITIA
CHAPTER 2. General Organization
122.

The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.


Miller, had he resided in California, would have been a member of the militia.
__________________
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j302/rpwhite55/guns/member13443.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:47 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,781
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

An honest essay from him would be something explaining why the 2A is obsolete and why we need to change it.

Things like that have been done before. Slavery became intolerable and it was ended by an amendment. Alcohol prohibition became intolerable and it was also ended by an amendment. There's a procedure for changing the constitution when there's a broad consensus that some aspect of it is no longer viable.

If he really really wanted to save lives, he would propose an amendment that clarifies that "stop and frisk" is legal and officers can use their discretion to do those searches, regardless of profiling. That would absolutely save lives, especially of underprivileged minorities. When NYC did something partially along those lines it provably saved hundreds of lives of the underprivileged.

Why not address that? But no... he wants to disarm white conservatives because that's what his real goal is.
__________________
learn to code
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-17-2019, 1:30 PM
Kurgan's Avatar
Kurgan Kurgan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 888
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

John Paul Stevens should exist for one reason. To be the ***** end of a human centipede.....
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-17-2019, 2:22 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,145
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
They dont believe it, which is scarier than if they did believe it.

They know it is garbage, and they dont care.

They know roe v wade is a crap opinion, but they do not care.

They put ideology over integrity.
No more an no less than the above, where some firearm's owners oppose the 1st Amendment right to privacy and some privacy advocates oppose a 2nd Am. right to individual arms ownership. Folks either take all of the Bill of Rights or they get none of it. There is no piecemeal or localized bill of rights. It is the same everywhere. The Constitution is fundamental, binding on all federal, state, and local actors. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). Those determinations of what the constitution means are binding until such time as our Supreme Court expands, narrows, or overturns them. Otherwise, our system of separation of powers and stare decisis make no sense.

Last edited by sarabellum; 05-17-2019 at 2:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-17-2019, 2:24 PM
therealnickb's Avatar
therealnickb therealnickb is offline
RIP Big Dog
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Probably not in any line.
Posts: 5,252
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
An honest essay from him would be something explaining why the 2A is obsolete and why we need to change it.

Things like that have been done before. Slavery became intolerable and it was ended by an amendment. Alcohol prohibition became intolerable and it was also ended by an amendment. There's a procedure for changing the constitution when there's a broad consensus that some aspect of it is no longer viable.

If he really really wanted to save lives, he would propose an amendment that clarifies that "stop and frisk" is legal and officers can use their discretion to do those searches, regardless of profiling. That would absolutely save lives, especially of underprivileged minorities. When NYC did something partially along those lines it provably saved hundreds of lives of the underprivileged.

Why not address that? But no... he wants to disarm white conservatives because that's what his real goal is.
SCOTUS shouldn’t be proposing anything IMO.
__________________
There is nothing so tragic as the loss of a child. Parents and teachers have the right to protect them. They should also have the ability. 911 isn’t enough.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-17-2019, 3:20 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 459
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What an asshоle.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-17-2019, 8:30 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,672
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
No more an no less than the above, where some firearm's owners oppose the 1st Amendment right to privacy and some privacy advocates oppose a 2nd Am. right to individual arms ownership. Folks either take all of the Bill of Rights or they get none of it. There is no piecemeal or localized bill of rights. It is the same everywhere. The Constitution is fundamental, binding on all federal, state, and local actors. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). Those determinations of what the constitution means are binding until such time as our Supreme Court expands, narrows, or overturns them. Otherwise, our system of separation of powers and stare decisis make no sense.
Exactly where in the 1st amendment is the word privacy mentioned ?
IIRC there are 5 elements and privacy is not in there!

Judge Steven's is a dishonest man !
__________________
"Both socialism & communism require a commitment to the use of force. You cannot decide what to do with the other guy’s money unless you are committed to use force to take that money from him..."
Rick Kelo

Last edited by ja308; 05-17-2019 at 8:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-17-2019, 9:35 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,572
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Miller case is not a 2A case it's a taxation case. It's a terrible decision but it's not a 2A decision. Under Miller a poll tax would be acceptable.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-17-2019, 9:38 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,572
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Steven's doesn't realize it but his arguement is advocating for a robust militia - he really doesn't mean that but hold him to it and demand a well armed militia. Watch him squirm.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-17-2019, 9:44 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,145
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja308 View Post
Exactly where in the 1st amendment is the word privacy mentioned ?
IIRC there are 5 elements and privacy is not in there!
From the same place, an individual right and a right to a modern firearm emanate. As you know from Constitutional law, "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). The Court in Griswold explained and ruled:
By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read . . . Without those peripheral rights, the specific rights would be less secure.

In NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 we protected the "freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations," noting that freedom of association was a peripheral First Amendment right. Disclosure of membership lists of a constitutionally valid association, we held, was invalid as entailing the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by petitioner's members of their right to freedom of association.

In other words, the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.
Folks, who elected to not study civics in high school and do not care to familiarize themselves with our constitution, argue that the constitution should be arbitrarily enforced, e.g. anti-4th and 5th Amendment claims of "technicalities" leading to the release of "obviously" guilty people. There is no room for situational ethics. However, keep arguing matters like "it doesn't say that" so the state can demand the member list to whatever group that the state and business find unpalatable, and then round those folks up. In the 1940's the unpalatable folks were Japanese, in the 1950s it was leaders of organized labor, and in the 1960s the unpalatable folks were civil rights activists. For the 2010s, it could be members of armament groups just like you. Be careful what you wish for.

Until such time as the Supreme Court reverses a decision, that decision is the constitution, binding on all federal, state, and local actors. Otherwise, our constitution premised upon separation of powers and stare decisis make no sense. No one gets to pick and choose what part of the constitution they like. That is the same mentality of the opponents of armament.

Last edited by sarabellum; 05-17-2019 at 10:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:04 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 863
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.
Chief Justice John Roberts

coughbull****cough
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:37 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,672
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
From the same place, an individual right and a right to a modern firearm emanate. As you know from Constitutional law, "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). The Court in Griswold explained and ruled:
By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read . . . Without those peripheral rights, the specific rights would be less secure.

In NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 we protected the "freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations," noting that freedom of association was a peripheral First Amendment right. Disclosure of membership lists of a constitutionally valid association, we held, was invalid as entailing the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by petitioner's members of their right to freedom of association.

In other words, the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.
Folks, who elected to not study civics in high school and do not care to familiarize themselves with our constitution, argue that the constitution should be arbitrarily enforced, e.g. anti-4th and 5th Amendment claims of "technicalities" leading to the release of "obviously" guilty people. There is no room for situational ethics. However, keep arguing matters like "it doesn't say that" so the state can demand the member list to whatever group that the state and business find unpalatable, and then round those folks up. In the 1940's the unpalatable folks were Japanese, in the 1950s it was leaders of organized labor, and in the 1960s the unpalatable folks were civil rights activists. For the 2010s, it could be members of armament groups just like you. Be careful what you wish for.

Until such time as the Supreme Court reverses a decision, that decision is the constitution, binding on all federal, state, and local actors. Otherwise, our constitution premised upon separation of powers and stare decisis make no sense. No one gets to pick and choose what part of the constitution they like. That is the same mentality of the opponents of armament.
Thank You I learned something !
That said the griswald case seems kinda stupid where a conviction was overturned for prescribing contraceptives.
One would think the law was unconstitutional and would have been challenged as opposed to privacy issue.
__________________
"Both socialism & communism require a commitment to the use of force. You cannot decide what to do with the other guy’s money unless you are committed to use force to take that money from him..."
Rick Kelo
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-18-2019, 1:12 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,145
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja308 View Post
Thank You I learned something !
That said the griswald case seems kinda stupid where a conviction was overturned for prescribing contraceptives.
One would think the law was unconstitutional and would have been challenged as opposed to privacy issue.
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) the issues were:
1. Appellants have standing to assert the constitutional rights of the married people. Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44, distinguished. P. 481.

2. The Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Pp. 481-486.
The Plaintiff doctors and health center filed suit on behalf of their patients, close relationship standing, to challenge the constitutionality of former "§§ 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.)."

People, who oppose a particular constitutional right, will propose statutes faster than people can challenge them or afford financially to retain counsel to challenge them, as we saw with contraception and sadly we see with arms ownership. Without the penumbra of protection inherent in a constitutional provision or principle inherent in the laws of nations, constitutional rights in language drafted in the negative are hollow. We will likely not see the penumbra analysis applied to firearms, because the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald signaled a departure from that penumbra, adopting a hands off stance where the court will not entertain challenges to the constitutionality of arms regulations:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id.We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.
Folks have every reason to be skeptical of the Supreme Court.

Last edited by sarabellum; 05-18-2019 at 4:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-18-2019, 2:56 PM
sfarchitect's Avatar
sfarchitect sfarchitect is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1,177
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Personally I'd have picked Citizen's United. IMO, the(!) worst SCOTUS precedent since Dredd Scott.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-18-2019, 4:23 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,572
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Wickard v Filburn is far worse.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-18-2019, 4:29 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,572
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

US v Carolene Products Co gave us the pure adhoc fabrication of levels of scrutiny fiasco so is arguably the worst decision ever. No where in the constitution is there any hint of a hierarchy of rights.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-19-2019, 4:29 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,145
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
US v Carolene Products Co gave us the pure adhoc fabrication of levels of scrutiny fiasco so is arguably the worst decision ever. No where in the constitution is there any hint of a hierarchy of rights.
Without those levels of scrutiny (e.g. strict scrutiny applied to regulations affecting fundamental rights, wherein the law will almost always fail), any state regulation impairing a right would survive. In the absence of specialized review of statutes affecting constitutional rights, anything goes. Carolene affects commercial rights, reviewed under the rational basis standard. We in this thread and in others reviewed the levels of scrutiny. 2nd Amendment proponents arguing for eliminating the high level of review (shifting the burden onto the government to justify the regulation) to replace it with "history" and "tradition" are shooting themselves in the foot and arguing contrary to the Plaintiffs in our lead cases, urging strict scrutiny. But folks, keep it up arguing "do away with heightened review," so at some point the Attorney General in some state argues, "research shows gun owners overwhelmingly urge that regulations impairing the 2nd Amendment should not be subjected to heightened scrutiny or any scrutiny," and the federal judiciary grants them their wish by upholding all regulation, absent a total ban.

Last edited by sarabellum; 05-19-2019 at 4:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-19-2019, 5:36 PM
rudigan's Avatar
rudigan rudigan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Fresno County
Posts: 1,435
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

No surprise or new info here.
This write up is from the Atlantic, and Stevens is the ex SCJ that wants to repeal the 2A
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-19-2019, 6:05 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,672
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfarchitect View Post
Personally I'd have picked Citizen's United. IMO, the(!) worst SCOTUS precedent since Dredd Scott.
I would have bet money you were in favor of unions donating to and working for their candidates !
__________________
"Both socialism & communism require a commitment to the use of force. You cannot decide what to do with the other guy’s money unless you are committed to use force to take that money from him..."
Rick Kelo
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:27 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.