SCOTUS to consider “incorporation�

[Guest PapaB]

According to SCOTUSblog:

Second Amendment cases up early

The Supreme Court will consider two new cases on the scope of individuals’ Second Amendment right to have guns at its first Conference for the new Term, on Sept. 29, according to the Court’s electronic docket. Both petitions challenge a Seventh Circuit Court ruling that the Amendment does not restrict gun control laws adopted by state, county or city government, but applies only to federal laws. The cases are National Rifle Association v. Chicago (08-1497) and McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521).

The so-called “incorporation†issue is the most significant sequel issue raised in the wake of the Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing for the first time a personal right to have a gun for self-defense, at least in one’s home.

If the Court agrees to hear the new cases after its first look, that could be announced as early as the day after the Conference — that is, on Wed., Sept. 30. The first Conference of a new Term customarily is held in advance of the Term’s formal opening; this year, the Term starts Oct. 5.

The Court has not yet scheduled a time to consider another pending case on the Second Amendment issue — Maloney v. Rice (08-1592). The response in that case is now due on Aug. 28. The new Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, took part in the Maloney case when she was on the Second Circuit Court. Like the Seventh Circuit, the Second found that the Second Amendment only applies to federal laws. When the Justices consider the Maloney case, Sotomayor is not expected to take part. The fact that she had taken part in a ruling on the issue in one case, however, would not require her to withdraw from considering cases from other Circuits, like the Chicago cases.

Here's a link:

Second Amendment cases up early | SCOTUSblog

The upcoming session could prove to be interesting with these cases addressing incorporation. The Montana 10th Amendment issue could also come up toward the end of this session or in the next one.

[Guest HexHead]

YES!!!

[DavidD]

YES!!!

Fealing good about this one Hex?

[E4 No More]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but considering to hear is not the same as hearing the case.

[DavidD]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but considering to hear is not the same as hearing the case.

You are correct. Unlike Hex, I've got a baaaad feeling on this next round........hope I'm wrong though.

[Guest HexHead]

You are correct. Unlike Hex, I've got a baaaad feeling on this next round........hope I'm wrong though.

The "make-up" of the court hasn't changed with the confirmation of Sotomayor. In fact, she'll be recused from one of the cases since she was part of the decision being heard.

It's inconceivable to me that the 2nd would be the only of the first ten amendments that wouldn't apply to the states. Especially in light of the decision that the 2nd is an individual right. How could the 1st apply to the states and not the 2nd?

[DavidD]

The "make-up" of the court hasn't changed with the confirmation of Sotomayor. In fact, she'll be recused from one of the cases since she was part of the decision being heard.

It's inconceivable to me that the 2nd would be the only of the first ten amendments that wouldn't apply to the states. Especially in light of the decision that the 2nd is an individual right. How could the 1st apply to the states and not the 2nd?

Yes I've considered the whole Sotomayor recused thing however it still worries me that they are yet again hearing a case where a city/state wants to "regulate" as the anti defense attorney's will most likely try and argue. Believe me,I'm with you on the whole Bill of Rights All or nothing view. I do believe that was the original intention but these days, nothing surprises me and anytime my beliefs are "put on trial", I believe there is cause for concern. Glad to see you are being positive though .

[Guest justme]

It's inconceivable to me that the 2nd would be the only of the first ten amendments that wouldn't apply to the states. Especially in light of the decision that the 2nd is an individual right. How could the 1st apply to the states and not the 2nd?

because that is the way the liberal, anti-gunners want it...they hate and despise even the thought of an individual right under the 2nd Amendment...so they will do anything to take it from us.

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

Edited August 27, 2009 by justme

[Chief07]

I read this on Newsmax. We will just have to wait and see.

The whole gun control issue has nothing to do with public safety

or crime. It is about population control.

If the far left can keep chipping away

at the constitution and the bill of rights they will get the communist agenda

through.

Look at he Obama cabinet. He has communists, socialists, statists, enviro-

nutjobs and a whole host of malcontents on board.

Ray

[Guest HexHead]

because that is the way the liberal, anti-gunners want it...they hate and despise even the thought of an individual right under the 2nd Amendment...so they will do anything to take it from us.

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

They'll have to get past Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas to do it. And on the 2nd case, I'm reasonably sure we can count on Kennedy again like we did on Heller.

[Guest PapaB]

The whole argument on what part of the Bill of Rights passes to the states is ridiculous from a historical perspective. The Bill of Rights was created by the states insisting those 10 amendments be added. They originally provided over 130 items that they wanted to include. They were eventually combined and focused into the first 10 amendments. Only a progressive liberal dipwad could argue they don't pass on to the individual states.

[macville]

What doesn't make sense is why the other 9 bill of right amendments apply to the states when the 2d one doesn't. So I say if the 2d doesn't apply to the states then here in TN let search the homes of people of people who do not believe the 2d applies. Then arrest them without cause and set $1 billion bond each....because if the 2d is pointless than so is the 4th, 5th, & 8th!

Matthew

[Guest HexHead]

What doesn't make sense is why the other 9 bill of right amendments apply to the states when the 2d one doesn't. So I say if the 2d doesn't apply to the states then here in TN let search the homes of people of people who do not believe the 2d applies. Then arrest them without cause and set $1 billion bond each....because if the 2d is pointless than so is the 4th, 5th, & 8th!

Matthew

Exactly my point. The whole incorporation argument is ridiculous on it's face.

[Guest PapaB]

What doesn't make sense is why the other 9 bill of right amendments apply to the states when the 2d one doesn't.

Matthew

Actually, SCOTUS has not incorporated the 2nd, 3rd or 7th amendments. It also didn't incorporate the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th amendment.