Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

Yeah, it will be 5-4 but so what.

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

They should uphold the DC court's ruling. The 2nd amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So they have no business overturning the lower court's ruling which overturned the gun ban and found that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The conservative leaning Supreme Court should do the right thing here.

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

Once this ruling happens, can practically any gun ban be overturned? How does that process work? Do I illegally bear a firearm in the area and go to court?

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
They should uphold the DC court's ruling. The 2nd amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So they have no business overturning the lower court's ruling which overturned the gun ban and found that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The conservative leaning Supreme Court should do the right thing here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should the federal government be able to tell a state (or in this case DC) that it can't ban guns?

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They should uphold the DC court's ruling. The 2nd amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So they have no business overturning the lower court's ruling which overturned the gun ban and found that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The conservative leaning Supreme Court should do the right thing here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should the federal government be able to tell a state (or in this case DC) that it can't ban guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

Better question, isnt there a pretty big difference between "a state" and "DC?" I'm embarrassed to say that I live in DC and I dont know the answer.

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

Earlier posts I've made on this topic: Link, Link.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should the federal government be able to tell a state (or in this case DC) that it can't ban guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

Better question, isnt there a pretty big difference between "a state" and "DC?" I'm embarrassed to say that I live in DC and I dont know the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
In this case, its a huge difference. The 2nd Amendment has never been "incorporated" by the Supreme Court, meaning that it does not apply to state and local laws. If the Supreme Court rules that handgun bans are unconstitutional, most gun laws will remain on the books unless they take the additional step of incorporating the 2nd Amendment. Since the case doesn't deal directly with State laws, I doubt they will incorporate the 2nd Amendment here. I also suspect the reason they chose this case to hear over all of the other cases seeking to implement the 2nd (there are a lot of them) is that it deals specically with federal law as opposed to state law.

Regarding the status of DC, the local government is a wholly owned subsidiary of Congress. For most of the nation's history, Congress doubled as the DC City Council. Only recently has Congress allowed a degree of autonomy by allowing DC citizens to elect their own City Council. However, they may alter or abolish the Council by statute.

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
Should the federal government be able to tell a state (or in this case DC) that it can't ban guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the federal government should be able to intervene anytime the Constitution is being trampled on. What if a state decided to disregard the 13th?

I'm sure most (reasonable people, not ACists) would agree that if, for example, Tennessee decided to round up all black people and enslave them tomorrow, the federal government should get involved.

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should the federal government be able to tell a state (or in this case DC) that it can't ban guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the federal government should be able to intervene anytime the Constitution is being trampled on. What if a state decided to disregard the 13th?

I'm sure most (reasonable people, not ACists) would agree that if, for example, Tennessee decided to round up all black people and enslave them tomorrow, the federal government should get involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

They can't because the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments all specifically apply to the states.

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should the federal government be able to tell a state (or in this case DC) that it can't ban guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the federal government should be able to intervene anytime the Constitution is being trampled on. What if a state decided to disregard the 13th?

I'm sure most (reasonable people, not ACists) would agree that if, for example, Tennessee decided to round up all black people and enslave them tomorrow, the federal government should get involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I agree with this. The bill of rights and it's amendments are all agreed as the law of every state in the union. I am just not sure if it's the federal government's role to enforce it. Not sure in the sense that I am just don't know how it would operate in practice of such a blatant disregard for the constitution by a state.

Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it will be 5-4 but so what.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the rulings that made our current government able to largely ignore the Constitution were 5-4. Nice to see one that goes the other way.