"Supreme" Court.........2A issue

[JonDough]

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-does-mean-bear-guns-110205014.html


Interesting.

 

[vvvvvvv]

This is why the NRA dropped the P/I argument and put forth a Due Process argument. Due Process requires narrow rulings on each individual subject matter and guarantees a need for groups like the NRA in court. P/I would have largely eliminated that need.

Heller and McDonald specifically only addressed the possession of a working firearm only within the home only for the purpose of self defense. It did not address the use of that firearm. It did not address whether that firearm must be stored securely. It did not address whether you could have a firearm on your person within your home. It did not address anything outside of the home. The Court specifically said that all "longstanding prohibitions" are to be considered Constitutional until determined otherwise by the Supreme Court, which is the very spirit of "Due Process".

Seeking incorporation through Due Process was the same as saying "we want to make sure each detail regarding this Amendment can be legally determined on a case-by-case basis". Rather than asserting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a fundamental right and therefore a privilege and immunity of being a United States Citizen, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was demoted to the status of a "gift" from the government in the form of an enumerated right of the people with the extent of coverage subject to determination by the Supreme Court in each individual case.

 

[mugsy]

This is why the NRA dropped the P/I argument and put forth a Due Process argument. Due Process requires narrow rulings on each individual subject matter and guarantees a need for groups like the NRA in court. P/I would have largely eliminated that need.

Heller and McDonald specifically only addressed the possession of a working firearm only within the home only for the purpose of self defense. It did not address the use of that firearm. It did not address whether that firearm must be stored securely. It did not address whether you could have a firearm on your person within your home. It did not address anything outside of the home. The Court specifically said that all "longstanding prohibitions" are to be considered Constitutional until determined otherwise by the Supreme Court, which is the very spirit of "Due Process".

Seeking incorporation through Due Process was the same as saying "we want to make sure each detail regarding this Amendment can be legally determined on a case-by-case basis". Rather than asserting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a fundamental right and therefore a privilege and immunity of being a United States Citizen, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was demoted to the status of a "gift" from the government in the form of an enumerated right of the people with the extent of coverage subject to determination by the Supreme Court in each individual case.

All correct and factual refue Process but your assertion that the reason for going that path is because of a selfish desire to perpatuate their own importance is nothing but conjecture. In fact, a very strong argument can, and has, been made that Due Process Cases are a safer, much lower risk way to approach arguments where one advers ruling can have enormous consequences. This can be especially important if the court votes are in doubt. Effectively, a judgement call has been made that it is better to seek small victories that with a higher probability of victory than a high-risk one time roll of the dice in which you might lose even what you have already. You may disagree with that but that doesn't mean it is driven by a crass, self-serving motive.

 

[SoonerP226]

IMHO, the NRA learned from the anti-2A "death by a thousand cuts" model--it's not just safer to fight the fight piecemeal, but it makes it easier when you come back for more, because you've already laid the groundwork to support your next case.

 

[RugersGR8]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/09/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-to-hear-cases-regarding-right-to-bear-arms/
Supreme Court to decide whether to hear cases regarding right to ‘bear’ arms
Published February 09, 2014
FoxNews.com

*****************************

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/02/10/supreme-court-asked-to-clarify-what-it-means-to-bear-arms/
11:06 am
Feb 10, 2014
Supreme Court Asked to Clarify What it Means to ‘Bear’ Arms
By Jacob Gershman

*****************************

http://www.lawyerherald.com/articles/4597/20140210/us-supreme-court-to-receive-two-guns-cases-to-define-the-meaning-of-bear-arms.htm
US Supreme Court to receive two guns cases to define the meaning of 'bear' arms
By Staff Writer
Feb 10, 2014 09:49 PM EST

 

[LuckyDucky]

IMHO, the NRA learned from the anti-2A "death by a thousand cuts" model--it's not just safer to fight the fight piecemeal, but it makes it easier when you come back for more, because you've already laid the groundwork to support your next case.

Yep, everyone has learned a lot about how to use the courts for judicial activism from the 1960s civil rights era.

Not that I agree, legally, with how it is done via selective incorporation, but the results are working for us.