|
|
|
|
#1
11-20-2007, 03:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
Yeah, it will be 5-4 but so what.
|
|
#2
11-20-2007, 03:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#3
11-20-2007, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#4
11-20-2007, 03:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#5
11-20-2007, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#6
11-22-2007, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
[ 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 ] What happens when you vote for the president? What happens to the votes of the DC voters?
|
|
#7
11-20-2007, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#8
11-20-2007, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#9
11-20-2007, 04:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] So does the 2nd. Unlike the 1st, the 2nd doesn't say it applies only to Congress. On the other hand, I don't think the Feds should be involved regardless and wouldn't mind seeing an amendment that let states ban guns if they want and more clearly barred the federal government from doing so (although I dunno how it could be more clear).
|
|
#10
11-20-2007, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
