Someone more legally informed than I please tell me, why?

[E4 No More]

For the life of me I don't understand why the Supreme Court is allowed to kick the 2nd Amendment can on down the road? For decades I've seen the conservative-weighted SC sit on the sidelines while all of the 2nd Amendment issues are bantered around the country. They act like a soccer goalie kicking the issue back into play rather than settling it themselves.  I'm not a lawyer by any means, but isn't it the SC's job to uphold the constitution? Aren't they supposed to throw-out laws that violate the constitution, and make rulings/interpret the constitution? Why are they allowed to reject hearing cases that directly address the 2nd Amendment? I mean, regularly I hear about decisions from the SC that appear to have far less impact on the constitutional issues but get heard really quickly - such as gay marriage. WTF are these people paid for?

 

Someone well versed in such things needs to explain it to me, please?

[Raoul]

So what case do you think they should have taken up?

[E4 No More]

So what case do you think they should have taken up?

Name a gun-control law.

 

EDIT: I just Googled and got this article from a communist rag: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/23/the-case-that-could-refine-the-2nd-amendment.html

 

"The Supreme Court has only twice in its history overturned a law under the Second Amendment and both cases (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago) involved complete bans on the possession of handguns. Since 2010, the court has not taken a Second Amendment case though it has had plenty of opportunities to do so. For example, on the same day in 2014, the court refused to review three gun cases involving laws pertaining to the selling of guns to consumers across state lines and a Texas law prohibiting 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying guns in public. The justices have also declined cases upholding strict permitting procedures making it difficult for many people to carry guns in public in Maryland, New York, and New Jersey.

 

The National Rifle Association and other organizations hostile to gun control have been trying to get issues like these before the court for five years to no avail.

Edited January 5, 2016 by SWJewellTN

[monkeylizard]

SCOTUS doesn't just look at a law and say "Yea" or "Nay". A case has to be filed in a local state or federal court, then have the judgment appealed through all of the levels of the appellate system. The parties in the suit can then petition SCOTUS to hear their case. SCOTUS can't do much until all of those things happen. Then 4 or more of the 9 justices have to vote to hear the case. In addition, SCOTUS only hears cases to resolve a conflict in the law, are a result of a lower court disregarding a past SCOTUS ruling, are important, or are of some special interest to enough of the justices such as a case about a specific part of the law that they like (let's say several are former immigration lawyers then a case on immigration might get in before one on bankruptcy).

 

Here are two in the recent past that they did hear (and in fact decided in our favor):

D.C. v. Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

McDonald v. City of Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

 

And two they have recently rejected:

Friedman v. City of Highland Park. https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/07/scotus-refuses-to-hear-2nd-amendment-ass

Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco Jackson v. City and County of San Franciscohttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/09/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-second-amendment-case-over-dissent-of-two-justices/

 

As for SCOTUS hearing a case on gay marriage having a lesser Constitutional impact, that's very much a Constitutional issue. It goes to the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law. That's why they heard it.

Edited January 5, 2016 by monkeylizard

[E4 No More]

Here are two in the recent past.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

See my point above.

 

It seems that if the SC would rule on the meaning of the 2A then much of this crap would be settled. But I guess conflict means big money to both sides, huh? Some of the stupid things I hear said just boggle the mind, like the 1A applies to electronic media but the 2A only applies to flint-locks, muskets, or hunting rifles.

[Oh Shoot]

So what case do you think they should have taken up?

 

Recent "assault weapon/highcap mag" ban. They let it stand by not hearing it.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/supreme-court-will-not-hear-challenge-to-assault-weapons-ban-of-highland-park-ill.html?_r=0

 

- OS

Edited January 5, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[Moped]

Recent "assault weapon/highcap mag" ban. They let it stand by not hearing it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/supreme-court-will-not-hear-challenge-to-assault-weapons-ban-of-highland-park-ill.html?_r=0

- OS

Agreed.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

[E4 No More]

In cases that they have heard they've focused their rulings to fine points of law and ignored the larger points of the law. How many people do you hear ask what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear? How many times has the 2A come under attack, but the gays got pretty much so fast-tracked into law. The same thing pretty much happened with abortion, IIRC.

[monkeylizard]

How many people do you hear ask what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?

 

I'm not sure I want SCOTUS ruling on that. In the same breath they can rule on what part of "A well regulated Militia" is unclear?

Edited January 5, 2016 by monkeylizard

[E4 No More]

I'm not sure I want SCOTUS ruling on that. In the same breath they can rule on what part of "A well regulated Militia" is unclear?

Yes, but is what's going on now better, (depending on where you live)? I think not, I think the biggest problem with SC is that we, the people, have allowed to become political more than constitutional. It's probably a Genie that we now can't get back in the bottle.

[monkeylizard]

Yes, but is what's going on now better, (depending on where you live)? I think not, I think the biggest problem with SC is that we, the people, have allowed to become political more than constitutional. It's probably a Genie that we now can't get back in the bottle.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. I could see a ruling that strikes down all personal firearm ownership except for persons who are members of a well-regulated militia, and having "well-regulated militia" defined as one regulated by the state or local government. If a state or locality refuses to authorize a militia (or has crazy stupid requirements for membership), then persons in that area are screwed. In that sense, what's going on now is a whole lot better.

Edited January 5, 2016 by monkeylizard

[Oh Shoot]

Yes, but is what's going on now better, (depending on where you live)? I think not, I think the biggest problem with SC is that we, the people, have allowed to become political more than constitutional. It's probably a Genie that we now can't get back in the bottle.

 

When was it not politically tinged at heart? It has upheld slavery, then "separate but equal", then finally "equal".

 

What part of "all men are created equal" did SCOTUS miss for over 150 years, and  "equal protection of the laws" for about 100 years of that, eh? Just as egregious as "shall not be infringed".

 

- OS

Edited January 5, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[E4 No More]

Maybe. Maybe not. I could see a ruling that strikes down all personal firearm ownership except for persons who are members of a well-regulated militia, and having "well-regulated militia" defined as one regulated by the state or local government. If a state or locality refuses to authorize a militia (or has crazy stupid requirements for membership), then persons in that area are screwed. In that sense, what's going on now is a whole lot better.

I see your point: however, SCOTUS does take culture into account. How long has it been since a well-regulated militia existed?

[Raoul]

You guys act as if the SCOTUS was a non-political entity.

[E4 No More]

When was it not politically tinged at heart? It has upheld slavery, then "separate but equal", then finally "equal".

 

What part of "all men are created equal" did SCOTUS miss for over 150 years, and and "equal protection of the laws" for about 100 years of that, eh? Just as egregious as "shall not be infringed".

 

- OS

I dunno. I don't think that the Founding Fathers all sat around agreeing that it's a good idea to set-up a "check and balance" that's to be a political animal. :shrug:

[monkeylizard]

I see your point: however, SCOTUS does take culture into account. How long has it been since a well-regulated militia existed?

 

Ah-ha! And that is the argument the antis use to say the 2nd should be repealed.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

If the right to keep and bear arms is predicated on there being a Militia, and the existence of the Militia is predicated on it being necessary to the security of a free State, but that same Militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free State, then *poof* the justification for the people to keep and bear arms is gone.

[E4 No More]

Ah-ha! And that is the argument the antis use to say the 2nd should be repealed.

 

 

 

 

If the right to keep and bear arms is predicated on there being a Militia, and the existence of the Militia is predicated on it being necessary to the security of a free State, but that same Militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free State, then *poof* the justification for the people to keep and bear arms is gone.

Of course the anti's argue this, (they're retarded and incapable of understanding what a comma means), but individual gun ownership existing for >100 years AND other rulings ignoring the militias would lead me to believe that the conservative court would rule on our side of the issue. Would you prefer that it be taken up when there is a decidedly liberal slant on the court? Do you think the anti's would just let it go then?

[monkeylizard]

Of course not, but the way cases work, we're going to get small pieces of progress and retreat and not some big sweeping announcement from SCOTUS declaring that any free citizen can have any old thing they want.

 

As far as why the SCOTUS didn't take up the Friedman and Jackson cases, I suspect part of it was because of Heller and McDonald. They probably think they've ruled on enough cases in that area of the law for a while.

[No_0ne]

If you look at the SCOTUS cases regarding gun laws over the past 200 years, they have been pretty consistent in acknowledging that the second amendment prohibits the Federal government from infringing on the rights enumerated in that amendment, with the caveat that the states have some authority to regulate what arms are permissible, as well as how and when they are carried.  As others have pointed out, in both the Heller and McDonald cases those localities had a de facto ban on the possession of a certain class of firearms that are considered "common".  It's rare that any single decision makes drastic changes in the intent of a body of laws and regulations, judicial precedence being a fundamental part of the US legal system, but the court has been moving steadily, if slowly, towards wider restrictions on what the states can regulate and prohibit.  I doubt if this will change anytime soon.

Edited January 6, 2016 by No_0ne

[DaveTN]

In cases that they have heard they've focused their rulings to fine points of law and ignored the larger points of the law. How many people do you hear ask what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear? How many times has the 2A come under attack, but the gays got pretty much so fast-tracked into law. The same thing pretty much happened with abortion, IIRC.

Okay, I’ll play. There are only two black and white choices.

1. Every law abiding American can strap on a gun and walk down the street. No state or local law shall interfere with this right.
2. No person unless they are part of a well-regulated militia (approved by the Feds) has the right to keep or bear arms.

Which would you pick as a SCOTUS Justice? You don’t get to quote any standing decisions; we are starting new.

[Garufa]

Okay, I’ll play. There are only two black and white choices.

1. Every law abiding American can strap on a gun and walk down the street. No state or local law shall interfere with this right.
2. No person unless they are part of a well-regulated militia (approved by the Feds) has the right to keep or bear arms.

Which would you pick as a SCOTUS Justice? You don’t get to quote any standing decisions; we are starting new.

Your best post ever.

[monkeylizard]

Okay, I’ll play. There are only two black and white choices.

1. Every law abiding American can strap on a gun and walk down the street. No state or local law shall interfere with this right.
2. No person unless they are part of a well-regulated militia (approved by the free States) has the right to keep or bear arms.

Which would you pick as a SCOTUS Justice? You don’t get to quote any standing decisions; we are starting new.

 

FIFY.

[/Pedant] :)

 

More important than which one any of us would choose, is which one do we think the current SCOTUS would choose. I know I don't want to roll that particular die.

Edited January 6, 2016 by monkeylizard

[DaveTN]

FIFY.
[/Pedant] :)
 
More important than which one any of us would choose, is which one do we think the current SCOTUS would choose. I know I don't want to roll that particular die.

Nope, you don’t get to do that. If you pick #2 Congress (The Feds), not the states will be defining what a militia is.
We know what the current SCOTUS would do; they have done it. That is what this thread is about.

[E4 No More]

Okay, I’ll play. There are only two black and white choices.

1. Every law abiding American can strap on a gun and walk down the street. No state or local law shall interfere with this right.
2. No person unless they are part of a well-regulated militia (approved by the Feds) has the right to keep or bear arms.

Which would you pick as a SCOTUS Justice? You don’t get to quote any standing decisions; we are starting new.

I wasn't aware that I was playing a game. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'm serious.

 

There is no black and white and that is the problem - particularly when the problem is allowed to fester from inaction. Absolute statements in the constitution have been perverted for the convenience of the government in the past and particularly in the courts. Example: Go yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and see how that works out for you. Or tell a judge that you refuse to remain silent when he/she orders you to shut your mouth.

 

Basically, I see an erosion of our rights that is only going to get worse with time unless it's stopped. With the current political climate what it is today I see at least another 4 years of democrap rule. That will result in a flip in the SC to a decidedly liberal court that would not soon change. Delay will screw us for good.

[LagerHead]

In cases that they have heard they've focused their rulings to fine points of law and ignored the larger points of the law. How many people do you hear ask what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear? How many times has the 2A come under attack, but the gays got pretty much so fast-tracked into law. The same thing pretty much happened with abortion, IIRC.

 

If by "fast-tracked" you mean waited over 220 years for the federal government to grant them equal protection under the law, then yea, I guess it was lightning quick. ;)