The thing is, Scotusblog put up quotes that fit their agenda, they took them out of context. In context what they put up reads much better for us. Read the opinion, don't listen to SCOTUSblog on what it means. Remember, the people who host SCOTUSblog are from one of the firms that argued against Heller.
Wow, That was Quick! Chicago sued under Heller!
- Thread starter Hypnogator
- Start date
- Status
The thing is, Scotusblog put up quotes that fit their agenda, they took them out of context. In context what they put up reads much better for us. Read the opinion, don't listen to SCOTUSblog on what it means. Remember, the people who host SCOTUSblog are from one of the firms that argued against Heller.
Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.” (48, footnote 23)
---End Quote---
Did you not understand the paragraph immediately preceding your quote in the footnote you cite? I ask that because I don't see how you can read that comment (discussing how Cruikshank also found that the First Amendment did not apply to the states) and then reach the conclusion that what Scalia is saying is that the Second Amendment isn't incorporated. -- Bartholomew Roberts -- End Quote
Read the final sentence above. I have it in italics and underlined. That most plainly states there is no incorporation. THese law suits are aimed at draining money from one special interest group that could give heavily to the antigun candidate who stands as an OBAMANATION to the US Constitution.
I'm not saying this isn't a great win for us, but it's only a tiny baby step in a very loooooonnnnng road. This cultural war ain't over.... not by a long shot. lol
---End Quote---
Did you not understand the paragraph immediately preceding your quote in the footnote you cite? I ask that because I don't see how you can read that comment (discussing how Cruikshank also found that the First Amendment did not apply to the states) and then reach the conclusion that what Scalia is saying is that the Second Amendment isn't incorporated. -- Bartholomew Roberts -- End Quote
Read the final sentence above. I have it in italics and underlined. That most plainly states there is no incorporation. THese law suits are aimed at draining money from one special interest group that could give heavily to the antigun candidate who stands as an OBAMANATION to the US Constitution.
I'm not saying this isn't a great win for us, but it's only a tiny baby step in a very loooooonnnnng road. This cultural war ain't over.... not by a long shot. lol
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I think we all knew going in that the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated under the 14th and I don't think anyone was real surprised to see that is still the status quo since Heller was deliberately designed to avoid that question.
Did I misunderstand you? Because I took your statement to mean you thought Scalia was saying that there would be no incorporation in the future. If that is indeed what you meant, then I think you are reading the footnote and his opinion wrong.
Scalia is pointing out quite nicely that the cases that form the basis of the "Second Amendment doesn't apply to states" argument all predate the doctrine of selective incorporation and are ripe to be overturned.
Definitely true there.
El Tejon
Member
Ex, they call it "inviting the question" in the Supreme Court bidness.
Scalia is calling a triple dog dare.
I triple dog dare ya to file suit in the Seventh Circuit and make incorporation a Supreme Court question.
Scalia is calling a triple dog dare.
I triple dog dare ya to file suit in the Seventh Circuit and make incorporation a Supreme Court question.
General Geoff
Member
The first cut is the deepest, and we just drew first blood.
FieroCDSP
Member
Anyone have a count on the opinions (can't remember the actual name of the thing, still on the first cup of coffee) that all the groups sent in for the SC to look over and consider? How many pro-2A vs Anti-2A did they recieve? I'd almost be willing to bet they had nearly twice as many pro, and that they were much more sensical than the Anti arguments.
With the 2nd confirmed as an individual civil right, I think you could pretty safely place annual &/or exorbitant fees in the same category as poll taxes. We should see their removal for the same reason as the abolition of the poll tax. You can't make the exercising of a civil right contingent upon payment.
Nick
Nick
ARMY-JOHN
Member
Yes Sir I have to concur with you that we have made a victory here today and with the information that is heading into Chicago and San Fransico we have to fight these strong arm liberals at every front.
Don't we teach soldiers, sailors airmen to train as we fight and fight as we train, well than the same holds true here. We are in the opening engagement of the battle here folks and we need to stand shoulder to shoulder, commrads in arms to fight the people at every cost. To fight for liberty is a fight for freedom, justice and the American ideals that were given us by our For-Fathers; the framers of the Constitution.
Bartholomew Roberts: Did I misunderstand you? Because I took your statement to mean you thought Scalia was saying that there would be no incorporation in the future. If that is indeed what you meant, then I think you are reading the footnote and his opinion wrong.
Scalia is pointing out quite nicely that the cases that form the basis of the "Second Amendment doesn't apply to states" argument all predate the doctrine of selective incorporation and are ripe to be overturned.
Yes you DID misunderstand me. I was speaking ONLY of Heller and not of any future actions. In fact that's all I read into the decision, but you guys make a LOT of sense and that makes me feel a lot better now.
However, I think the actions and lawsuits filed by NRA are really aimed at draining antis funding that they could be channeling into the general election NOW. Any lawsuit is going to take years to wind it's way to the high court. But if Obama makes it into the WH in NOV the question could very well be rendered MOOT as they say in the USSC bid.
It was 22 years ago, but I kinda sorta remember my law school experience. Even if I only went half way before regaining my sanity.
Then I promptly lost said sanity forever by becoming a public school teacher at an inner city high school. LOL I teach seniors about "American Government!"
Scalia is pointing out quite nicely that the cases that form the basis of the "Second Amendment doesn't apply to states" argument all predate the doctrine of selective incorporation and are ripe to be overturned.
Yes you DID misunderstand me. I was speaking ONLY of Heller and not of any future actions. In fact that's all I read into the decision, but you guys make a LOT of sense and that makes me feel a lot better now.
However, I think the actions and lawsuits filed by NRA are really aimed at draining antis funding that they could be channeling into the general election NOW. Any lawsuit is going to take years to wind it's way to the high court. But if Obama makes it into the WH in NOV the question could very well be rendered MOOT as they say in the USSC bid.
It was 22 years ago, but I kinda sorta remember my law school experience. Even if I only went half way before regaining my sanity.
Then I promptly lost said sanity forever by becoming a public school teacher at an inner city high school. LOL I teach seniors about "American Government!"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
