2A Protected Class

[Tripper]

what would it take to make 2A a protected class

cannot discriminate based on age/sex/color/creed/national origin/2A beliefs/firearms ownership

with as many businesses that are anti, its getting hard to support anyone, how are we to actually get by at all
if we boycott every anti-2a organization, soon we wont have a bank, cable TV (cox just pulled all firearms ads), where will we buy gas?

theres got to be a break somewhere in this

we need to find a way to make it a hate crime to be against guns, or to discriminate based on guns

[ASTMedic]

Funny you posted this, I was just thinking about it too. If you were to stop allowing adds on cable TV from a ethnic group you would be hung out to dry quick. Same with banking or anything else that is going on. How is this acceptable to discriminate gun owners?

[JDay]

There should be no such thing as a "Protected Class". We ALL have the same protection under the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The equal protection clause was added to deal with the lack of equal protection provided by law to all in the course of administering justice in the states who had Black codes. Under black codes blacks could not sue, give evidence, be witnesses, received harsher degree of punishment, etc. The principal author of the Equal Protection Clause, John Bingham stated that phrase “equal protection” under the Fourteenth Amendment means that “It confers upon Congress power to see to it that the protection given by the laws of the States shall be equal in respect to life and liberty and property to all persons.”[28] The inclusion of the words equal protection along with the words life, liberty and property provided protection for all persons from arbitrary taking of life, imprisonment or confiscation of property.[28] Bingham said in a speech from March 31, 1871 that "the words “equal protection of the laws” were more than a glittering generality", but "that they were to be enforced to the extent of securing all guarantees of life, liberty, and property as provided by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States."[28] Thus it was Congress power to enforce laws guaranteed to all for the protection of life, liberty and property from arbitrary government action.[28] The equal protection of the laws disable legislatures and judges from unequally administering those rights of justice the State guarantees to all men (everyone has a right to process of law before being put to death, property confiscated or imprisoned).[23]

In the decades following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court overturned laws barring blacks from juries (Strauder v. West Virginia, 1880) or discriminating against Chinese Americans in the regulation of laundry businesses (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886), as violations of the Equal Protection Clause. However, in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court held that the states could impose segregation so long as they provided similar facilities—the formation of the "separate but equal" doctrine.[29] The Court went even further in restricting the Equal Protection Clause in Berea College v. Kentucky (1908), holding that the states could force private actors to discriminate by prohibiting colleges from having both black and white students. By the early 20th century, the Equal Protection Clause had been eclipsed to the point that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. dismissed it as "the usual last resort of constitutional arguments."[30]

The Court held to the "separate but equal" doctrine for more than fifty years, despite numerous cases in which the Court itself had found that the segregated facilities provided by the states were almost never equal, until Brown v. Board of Education (1954) reached the Court. In Brown the Court ruled that even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and so was unconstitutional. Brown met with a campaign of resistance from white Southerners, and for decades the federal courts attempted to enforce Brown's mandate against repeated attempts at circumvention.[31] This resulted in the controversial desegregation busing decrees handed down by federal courts in various parts of the nation (see Milliken v. Bradley, 1974).[32] In Hernandez v. Texas (1954) the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or "Negro" and extends to other racial and ethnic groups, such as Mexican Americans in this case. In the half century since Brown, the Court has extended the reach of the Equal Protection Clause to other historically disadvantaged groups, such as women and illegitimate children, although it has applied a somewhat less stringent standard than it has applied to governmental discrimination on the basis of race (United States v. Virginia, 1996; Levy v. Louisiana, 1968).[33]

Since Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)[34] and Reynolds v. Sims (1964),[35] the Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as requiring the states to apportion their congressional districts and state legislative seats according to "one man, one vote".[36] The Court has also struck down redistricting plans in which race was a key consideration. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court prohibited a North Carolina plan aimed at creating majority-black districts to balance historic underrepresentation in the state's congressional delegations.[37] In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006), the Court ruled that Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting plan intentionally diluted the votes of Latinos and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause.

[Drivedabizness]

I don't belileve CA's prison population is a "protected class" - but they have Federally appointed Special Masters telling CA how much money they have to spend on them, and what they can and can't do to them - all because the U.S. Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishments".

COTUS also forbids government from infringing on fundamental enumerated rights. I'd like to see the CA Legislature subject to the USDOJ (except of course that the current AG doesn't uphold laws he doesn't like) but I'd settle for a Special Master, acting on clear direction from an appropriate SCOTUS ruling. Heller and McDonald already laid that groundwork. I'd like to see this solution cost the ****eheads so much money that they finally cry "Uncle" and try to find someone else to screw.

[Tripper]

There should be no such thing as a "Protected Class". We ALL have the same protection under the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

No we don't