Why hasn't the US Supreme court had a case?
With all the clear 2nd amendment rights violations, why hasn't the supreme court heard a gun case yet? You'd think some of the Californians would have taken their gun cases to that level - funded by the NRA. Perhaps I have just missed them?
Are people scared that they might lose?
If I am a banned state, can I just sue the state for not allowing me to purchase a gun and get it to the US supreme court.
Are people scared that they might lose?
If I am a banned state, can I just sue the state for not allowing me to purchase a gun and get it to the US supreme court.
0
-
SCOTUS gets to choose which cases it hears... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by iwannausername
SCOTUS gets to choose which cases it hears...
Bingo. It isn't as if people don't try to get the 2nd heard, it is that SCOTUS doesn't want to hear them, and they have the option to not hear them if they don't want to.0 -
The SCOTUS won't touch this because if presented with a Second Amendment case they have to rule in favor of the Second, as it's a Constitutional right(law). We have some (few) friends in Washington, but the prevailing attitude is anti gun. If they would hear these type of cases, and followed the law, they would make a contribution FOR firearms rights. To do otherwise would require a new definition of the Second Amendment, something that the anti gun crowd has been wanting for a long time now. 0 -
Yup, last time SCOTUS dealt with the second, they basically confirmed that it is about military style arms, our Evil Black Rifles, Full Auto, etc. are really whats covered.... not grandpas (or Zumbos) hunting rifle/shotgun. 0 -
The SCOTUS is in deep thought right now whether or not the Government of Guam can legally borrow any more money.
The island of Guam is $1 Billion in debt with it's couple of people on it. The government there declareg today....a State of Emergency...they are out of money.
Teachers and others are not getting paid. The schools are sickening. The public trash pick up doesn't pick up trash. The Federal Govt. is threatening to take over Trash service and the landfill. The electricity is so expensive it's cheaper to hire an American to run on a treadmill hooked to a generator to create enough energy to light up a light bulb for $50 an hour. It's frekin crazy.
The SCOTUS....if they decide GovGuam can borrow any more money will make a grave mistake....the island can't pay the debt it has. If they say no the island is screwed....if they say yes the island is screwed.....I've got $5 they will send it to a lower court after 3 months of thought for re-review.
Houses here were selling in 24 hours from being advertised. Nobodies buying chet now.
It'll be interesting to see what happens after the Govt. of Guam declares bankruptcy and shuts down. I'll be on Martial Law duty.0 -
...........As my granddaddy use to say when I was but a child;
"They aren't nothing but a bunch of communist"
The Supreme Court is clever.
and,
My granddaddy was a wise man. [;)]0 -
While a 2nd Amendment case would sure be a good thing if decided in accordance with the Constitution, a 10th Amendment case might be just the ticket to curtail the federal bureuacracy just a bit. 0 -
BEFORE the Supreme Court can say it will or will not hear a case, the case must be FILED! NO ONE, INCLUDING the NRA, HAS FILED ONE!! So we have an unfulfilled prophecy of whether or not the S.C. will hear the case. The S.C. doesn't have say YES or NO because the NRA won't file it. If the NRA can't file in it's own name, which is Bull, there are a million gun owners who would let the NRA file in their names. Unless you won't. But I think we all would! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by mcaso
BEFORE the Supreme Court can say it will or will not hear a case, the case must be FILED! NO ONE, INCLUDING the NRA, HAS FILED ONE!! So we have an unfulfilled prophecy of whether or not the S.C. will hear the case. The S.C. doesn't have say YES or NO because the NRA won't file it. If the NRA can't file in it's own name, which is Bull, there are a million gun owners who would let the NRA file in their names. Unless you won't. But I think we all would!
MCASO, not doubting your word, if this is true we need to ask a big WHY to NRA, GOA, etc. There would be no acceptable excuse that I can think of.0 -
One of the problems they have had in several potential cases is that the issue involved was not specific enough to get the type of clear ruling needed, so it was not pursued. One need only to look at the arguments generated here over the cause or causes of a couple of wars, or even what the name of at least one of those wars ought to be, in order to see why clarity becomes important.[:)] 0 -
I agree with dlrjj. This is one that we do not want to take any chance of losing. It must be exactly "the right one" before it goes that far. Imagine the consequence of a negative decision from the Supreme Court!!!! 0 -
Lest you forget it was SCOTUS that found the magical words of SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE in the Constitution.
It was also SCOTUS that found a ultra-magical "right to privacy" in the document for females wishing to end a pregnancy.
Recently, the illustrious SCOTUS found that Wal-Mart had every right to your house and property to make it "better" for the community.
Getting SCOTUS involved in anything beyond parking tickets is a dangerous gamble; some of those suckers are not wrapped too tight.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mcaso
BEFORE the Supreme Court can say it will or will not hear a case, the case must be FILED! NO ONE, INCLUDING the NRA, HAS FILED ONE!! So we have an unfulfilled prophecy of whether or not the S.C. will hear the case. The S.C. doesn't have say YES or NO because the NRA won't file it. If the NRA can't file in it's own name, which is Bull, there are a million gun owners who would let the NRA file in their names. Unless you won't. But I think we all would!
Shoulda filed in Randy Weaver's name. I'm sure he'd love to tear a chunk off the fed's azz.0 -
There have been tens of thousands of gun cases...and people sitting in jail over illegal actions of courts.
Pure bullsnit..."No clear-cut cases".
The problem with a concerted drive by gun people to put a Second Amendment case before the Court....putting pressure on till they take it....lies more with fear.
Fear of an adverse decision.."The Second refers to the National Guard,ect "..
At that precise moment, millions of gun-owners will have to decide if they are American...or slaves.
At the moment, crawling on their belly to buy guns don't seem too bad.."Daddy...can I buy a gun..??
The moment the adverse decision comes down..men will be men...and cowards will weep.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
There have been tens of thousands of gun cases...and people sitting in jail over illegal actions of courts.
Pure bullsnit..."No clear-cut cases".
The problem with a concerted drive by gun people to put a Second Amendment case before the Court....putting pressure on till they take it....lies more with fear.
Fear of an adverse decision.."The Second refers to the National Guard,ect "..
At that precise moment, millions of gun-owners will have to decide if they are American...or slaves.
At the moment, crawling on their belly to buy guns don't seem too bad.."Daddy...can I buy a gun..??
The moment the adverse decision comes down..men will be men...and cowards will weep.
And until that decision happens in your life and you are facing the guns of enforcement you can not know what you will do.0 -
quote:And until that decision happens in your life and you are facing the guns of enforcement you can not know what you will do.
What is your point ? Men have laid down since time began...and the American Revolution was won from the strongest military ever on esrth, at the time...by rag-tag militia.
Purely by coincidence...your present government has outlawed such militia...hmmmt.0 -
Slipgate-
There is a California case that may be headed for the Supreme court out of Contra Costa County, where as the California Supreme court thru out a case of a trial whereas a convicted in Juvenille court, 17 year old juvenille was held in Jail for 8 months without bail , the police used that fact that he had a conviction for tagging buildings with spray paint to call him a gang memember and in their illegal search the found a 45 auto.
The Defense used the 1965 and 1973 right to privacy prenumeras zones of the fourteenth amendment and 4th amendment search and seizure and the 2nd amendment as a defense to the conviction of that case that was overturned by California Supreme court.
I would like to see our present U.S. Supreme court hear this one.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
There have been tens of thousands of gun cases...and people sitting in jail over illegal actions of courts.
Pure bullsnit..."No clear-cut cases".
The problem with a concerted drive by gun people to put a Second Amendment case before the Court....putting pressure on till they take it....lies more with fear.
Fear of an adverse decision.."The Second refers to the National Guard,ect "..
At that precise moment, millions of gun-owners will have to decide if they are American...or slaves.
At the moment, crawling on their belly to buy guns don't seem too bad.."Daddy...can I buy a gun..??
The moment the adverse decision comes down..men will be men...and cowards will weep.
Where is there a statement of "No clear cut cases" in these posts? I reread them all, but must have missed that declaration somewhere.0 -
quote:potential cases is that the issue involved was not specific enough to get the type of clear ruling needed, so it was not pursued. One need only to look at the arguments generated here
Split hairs, numbnuts..that is all you do well.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:potential cases is that the issue involved was not specific enough to get the type of clear ruling needed, so it was not pursued. One need only to look at the arguments generated here
Split hairs, numbnuts..that is all you do well.
The operative word that you so conveniently left out, of course, was "several". This is typical of your vituperative rants where you, at best, give something a cursory reading, engage in zero thought, and then make a declaratory, and virtually always incorrect, evaluation of the statement made.
No one with the slightest thread of intellectual honesty would drop a word like "several", and then completely adulterate the statement by changing it to "No", but then who ever said you possessed a thread of intellectual honesty or integrity.
"Lay on Macduff" was the cry Shakespeare gave to Macbeth; in your case it should likely be "Macfluff" for all the intellectual value your rants possess.0 -
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are known as conservative constructionists. They interpret the constitution as it is writen, not as they want to be. Some might call them "conservatives".
The question is "What about Anthony Kenned?"
or perhaps "How is Justice John Paul Stevens' health?"
One more thing...
"No federal court in history has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds."0 -
United States v. Miller
U.S. v. Miller is the Supreme Court's fullest discussion of the Second Amendment. In this case, the court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a federal law prohibiting the interstate transportation of sawed-off shotguns. It held that, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The court also held that the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia and it "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
Miller, however, had died after certiorari was granted but before the case was heard, thus no argument was made by his side.
Since Miller, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been addressed in more than 200 federal and state appellate cases. Those cases have consistently rejected Second Amendment challenges to firearms laws, with one exception since overturned on appeal. Though the U.S Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the Second Amendment since 1939, by its refusal to hear appeals, its actions have been consistent with Miller. The court has consistently refused to review lower court decisions rejecting Second Amendment challenges to firearms laws, despite numerous opportunities to do so.0 -
Numbnuts;
You are so wrapped up in your own self-glory, you think everthing anybody says is directed towards or about something you have said.
The words "No clear-cut cases" FAR predate your weak NRA excuses above..and is something I have heard NRA apologists and gun owner anti-gunners use for 30 years.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Numbnuts;
You are so wrapped up in your own self-glory, you think everthing anybody says is directed towards or about something you have said.
The words "No clear-cut cases" FAR predate your weak NRA excuses above..and is something I have heard NRA apologists and gun owner anti-gunners use for 30 years.
And I asked a simple question for the location of the quote you posted, and your response was the Oh so suave "numbnuts" rant in which you specifically and inaccurately quoted from my post. You then have the unmitigated gall to attempt to back peddle with a statement like that above and a lame statement that you did not reference my post, even though you included it in yours. That's an interesting and delusional interpretation of the visual reality you have presented in your own posts.
This, of course, is typical of you. You seem to feel that you should get a free rein to misinterpret, misrepresent, and just plain falsify what others post here, and then justify your boorish behavior by launching totally uncalled for attacks on the integrity of any who do not bow down to your rather provincial view of any topic. You have only one tune to play, and that is that none but you really understand the intent of the rules of law you choose to deal with, and that all who don't swear fealty to your throne are cowards or have sold out to the enemy.0 -
Well, numbnuts, after you responded to my post, I went back to see what had upset your little bookeeper mind...and found enough evidence in that quote of yours to make my case.
quote:You have only one tune to play, and that is that none but you really understand the intent of the rules of law you choose to deal with, and that all who don't swear fealty to your throne are cowards or have sold out to the enemy.
As for THIS little beauty..I fully believeI understand the "intent' of the 'rules of law' dealing with the Elites and weapons of war. They fully intend being the only people having, using, or controlling them.
You are welcome to your own half-assed beliefs concening that aspect.
As for it being "my throne"..sorry, Bubba.....the Founders occupied that 'throne'..and people like you have turned it back to the King. Congratulations0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Well, numbnuts, after you responded to my post, I went back to see what had upset your little bookeeper mind...and found enough evidence in that quote of yours to make my case.
quote:You have only one tune to play, and that is that none but you really understand the intent of the rules of law you choose to deal with, and that all who don't swear fealty to your throne are cowards or have sold out to the enemy.
As for THIS little beauty..I fully believeI understand the "intent' of the 'rules of law' dealing with the Elites and weapons of war. They fully intend being the only people having, using, or controlling them.
You are welcome to your own half-assed beliefs concening that aspect.
As for it being "my throne"..sorry, Bubba.....the Founders occupied that 'throne'..and people like you have turned it back to the King. Congratulations
Then please post where and how "One of the problems they have had in several potential cases is that the issue involved was not specific enough to get the type of clear ruling needed," became "No clear-cut cases" anywhere except in the dementia you think of as your mind. This is a pure case of fabrication on your part and can only be explained as a deliberate attempt to completely falsify a statement.0 -
You are entirely too amusing for words to express. Bookkeeping narrows your mind down to such minutia...
Care to adress the issue..speculating as to why the Supreme Court isn't pressured into a case ?
SUCH a weak excuse you 'we-love-the-government' types use, to deny us unwashed masses our rights that your type despise ..."No clear cut cases...0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
You are entirely too amusing for words to express. Bookkeeping narrows your mind down to such minutia...
Care to adress the issue..speculating as to why the Supreme Court isn't pressured into a case ?
SUCH a weak excuse you 'we-love-the-government' types use, to deny us unwashed masses our rights that your type despise ..."No clear cut cases...
The bottom line that you can't escape from is that you deliberately falsified the post of another forum member, and then attempted to use that total fabrication to discredit the post that had been made. Then once you were caught in the deception, you attempted to evade it by switching the subject. There is no honesty or integrity in that kind of deceit at all, but I really never expected any from you in the first place.
You make a lot of noise here about "Elites" and deception and government subversion and intimidation, but you demonstrate exactly those characteristics you purport to despise in virtually everything you write. Someone like you who thinks that sticking to the truth is simply "minutia" fits in quite well with the types you rail against. The best you seem to be able to do is attack, prevaricate, and call people names a five year old could dream up, and then attempt to deflect notice of your duplicity through what you perceive to be insults.
As to the answer to why no case has been brought before the Court by a group like the NRA in the past, there is at least one simple and obvious possible answer for such inaction for much of the last several decades. Please tell me just how many years since about 1940 we have had a conservative and strict constructionist enough court to have had a chance of winning a suit, regardless of the merits of the case.
To bring a case before something like the Warren Court would have been to kiss the 2nd Amendment as we view it goodbye, and we might just as well have turned in the guns and saved the time, effort, and money. Instead of "suicide by cop", gun owners would have had gun possession and ownership "suicide by Supreme Court". Why do you think it has been important to at least attempt to get jurists who would interpret the Constitution as written, not as currently politically correct?
This battle will ultimately be won or lost in the Supreme Court, not Congress or the White House, and Hillary is not going to appoint people friendly to firearms to the bench.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
One of the problems they have had in several potential cases is that the issue involved was not specific enough to get the type of clear ruling needed, so it was not pursued. One need only to look at the arguments generated here over the cause or causes of a couple of wars, or even what the name of at least one of those wars ought to be, in order to see why clarity becomes important.[:)]
[:)]0 -
Many, many people on both sides of the gunrights debate are afraid of what the decision would be. This includes the public, activistivists, judges, etc.
Most people are waiting for what they consider the perfect case judged by the perfect court. There is way too much at stake to do otherwise.
In the meantime, people like me pin a lot of hope on seeing on television some lawful armed citizen stop a terrorist attack that might kill hundreds. Or seeing a lawfully armed store clerk on a security video stop an armed robber in his tracks. With all the CCW laws out there (thanks to the extensive efforts of only a few pro-gun people/groups) we will see more and more of this. My hope is that such heroic, armed actions by common citizens will not only convince the majority of the effectiveness of having armed citizens, but will also make the majority realize what a good and honest amendment the 2A really is.
For yet another video of a lawfully armed citizen stopping an armed robbery, go the link below. Seeing the supposely tough armed robber run out of the store like a cowardly dog is more than worth the price of admission. Please spread such videos around.
http://www.newsok.com/video/1020900
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
32 comments