Exciting case coming up for argument in the Supreme Court - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Cali Coug · 02-18-2008, 07:28 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_...ct_of_Columbia

DC v Heller will be heard on March 18, 2008 in the Supreme Court. The attached Wikipedia link gives a fairly decent summary of the facts and procedural history of the case.

For those of you who don't know, the case involves the interpretation of the Second Amendment's grant of the right to bear arms. For decades, legal scholars have argued about whether the amendment grants each individual a right to bear arms, or whether the amendment is designed to be a collective grant, specific to militia use. There are good arguments to be made on both sides.

The Second Amendment is also somewhat unique in that it has never clearly been applied to the states (unlike most other provisions of the Bill of Rights). It will be interesting to see how the Court rules on the issue, and whether it impacts their interpretation of the applicability of other provisions of the Bill of Rights. In particular, Justice Thomas has noted lately (in the Newdow case) that the establishment clause doesn't apply to the states (meaning a state could establish an official religion if it wanted to).

Heller may not be the catalyst for further review of the applicability of provisions of the Bill of Rights against states, but even if it isn't, it will be a facinating case to read once decided (likely in the summer of 2008).

MikeWaters · 02-18-2008, 07:33 PM

Very high stakes in this case. NRA is afraid the court will rule against their view of the 2nd amendment. The wiki article talks about how the NRA tried to sabotage the case. In other words, many of the players prefer the status quo to the unknown.

If the court rules against the 2nd amendment being an individual right, I think you will see the gun lobby (which is composed of a lot of individuals, not corporate interests) explode with anger, and there will be hell to pay I think the dems should be very afraid of angering this lobby.

Flystripper · 02-18-2008, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Very high stakes in this case. NRA is afraid the court will rule against their view of the 2nd amendment. The wiki article talks about how the NRA tried to sabotage the case. In other words, many of the players prefer the status quo to the unknown.

If the court rules against the 2nd amendment being an individual right, I think you will see the gun lobby (which is composed of a lot of individuals, not corporate interests) explode with anger, and there will be hell to pay I think the dems should be very afraid of angering this lobby.

I'd be afraid. After all, you might get shot.

TripletDaddy · 02-18-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flystripper

I'd be afraid. After all, you might get shot.

Exactly. The last thing I would want to do is piss off a bunch of folks who would put guns in vending machines.

Tex · 02-18-2008, 07:55 PM

Cali Coug referencing Wikipedia. Oh how the mighty have fallen. What's next, Barbara?

I think a fresh national discussion on the doctrine of incorporation would do the nation good.

Cali Coug · 02-18-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Cali Coug referencing Wikipedia. Oh how the mighty have fallen. What's next, Barbara?

I think a fresh national discussion on the doctrine of incorporation would do the nation good.

Ah, Tex. Always incapable of understanding the obvious.

I have a problem with using Wikipedia as a source. I don't have a problem using it for background information. I am confident you understand the difference but, as you so often do, have decided to be deliberately obtuse.

Tex · 02-18-2008, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Ah, Tex. Always incapable of understanding the obvious.

I have a problem with using Wikipedia as a source. I don't have a problem using it for background information.

"When I quote it, good. When you quote it, bad."

Cali Coug · 02-18-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

"When I quote it, good. When you quote it, bad."

tex revision #1. You are a master.

Tex · 02-18-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

tex revision #1. You are a master.

Cali Duck #1. You are a master.

Detroitdad · 02-18-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Cali Duck #1. You are a master.

Sometimes I think the henpecking betwixt Cali and Tex is sexual tension.

02-18-2008, 07:55 PM	#5
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	Cali Coug referencing Wikipedia. Oh how the mighty have fallen. What's next, Barbara? I think a fresh national discussion on the doctrine of incorporation would do the nation good. __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young

02-18-2008, 07:28 PM	#1
Cali Coug Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 5,996	Exciting case coming up for argument in the Supreme Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_...ct_of_Columbia DC v Heller will be heard on March 18, 2008 in the Supreme Court. The attached Wikipedia link gives a fairly decent summary of the facts and procedural history of the case. For those of you who don't know, the case involves the interpretation of the Second Amendment's grant of the right to bear arms. For decades, legal scholars have argued about whether the amendment grants each individual a right to bear arms, or whether the amendment is designed to be a collective grant, specific to militia use. There are good arguments to be made on both sides. The Second Amendment is also somewhat unique in that it has never clearly been applied to the states (unlike most other provisions of the Bill of Rights). It will be interesting to see how the Court rules on the issue, and whether it impacts their interpretation of the applicability of other provisions of the Bill of Rights. In particular, Justice Thomas has noted lately (in the Newdow case) that the establishment clause doesn't apply to the states (meaning a state could establish an official religion if it wanted to). Heller may not be the catalyst for further review of the applicability of provisions of the Bill of Rights against states, but even if it isn't, it will be a facinating case to read once decided (likely in the summer of 2008).

02-18-2008, 07:33 PM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Very high stakes in this case. NRA is afraid the court will rule against their view of the 2nd amendment. The wiki article talks about how the NRA tried to sabotage the case. In other words, many of the players prefer the status quo to the unknown. If the court rules against the 2nd amendment being an individual right, I think you will see the gun lobby (which is composed of a lot of individuals, not corporate interests) explode with anger, and there will be hell to pay I think the dems should be very afraid of angering this lobby.