Supreme Court Guns Case Preview

[mikeyboyeee 66]

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010 ... latestnews

 

Supreme Court Guns Case Preview

February 28, 2010 - 5:33 PM | by: Lee Ross

The battle over the meaning of the Second Amendment returns to the Supreme Court Tuesday when the justices hear a case that is a follow-up to their historic ruling in 2008 that individuals have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On Sunday, Fox's Shannon Bream spoke with a couple of key figures in the gun rights debate: lawyer Alan Gura and Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Gura argued and won D.C. v. Heller two years ago and will appear before the Court Tuesday.

 

Even though the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, that historic ruling overturning a Washington D.C. gun ban doesn't apply to the 50 states. On Tuesday, the justices will be asked to do just that. The legal term is called "incorporation" but all that means is extending the federal protections of the Bill of Rights--including the Second Amendment--to the states. The case challenges Chicago's restrictive gun law. Dozens of groups have added their voices to the case including the National Rifle Association and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence.

 

Gura represents Otis McDonald who is challenging the Chicago law. "Virtually the entire Bill of Rights has been applied against states and local governments. The Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights. It protects a meaningful individual right which is very important to people in this country and throughout American history," Gura said.

 

Henigan says the case is Gura's to lose based on the premise that the same five judges who were part of the Heller majority will join together and carry the day in this case. But Henigan emphasizes another part of the Heller decision where he says "the Court implicitly recognized that there is still broad legislative authority to enact reasonable laws to reduce the risk from that right. And we hope the Court gives similar assurances in this case."

[NJ609 22]

This is going to be all down to HOW they word the decision.

 

Although so many blue states have such restricted rights as to make them non existant.... Such as NJ.

 

I really hope that freedom AND common sense prevail here. What's the point of 2A if all American's can't enjoy it?

[joejaxx 38]

This is going to be all down to HOW they word the decision.

 

Although so many blue states have such restricted rights as to make them non existant.... Such as NJ.

 

I really hope that freedom AND common sense prevail here. What's the point of The Bill of Rights if all American's can't enjoy it?

 

FIXED!

[NJ609 22]

FIXED!

 

Lol excellent point. Big picture thinking.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

It's a tough case because it's linked to all of the bill of rights.If the court allows them to apply just a portion of 2A then theoretically the states can do the same with all the other rights 1A, 5a etc,etc,. I never new that the bill of rights never applied to the states originally .They were incorporated in by the states constitutions and the courts at a later date. This case is so intertwined with all of the rights of the constitution that if the court tries to somehow deny that the states have to honor it it could cause a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have not seen since the great depression.

[KpdPipes 388]

It's a tough case because it's linked to all of the bill of rights.If the court allows them to apply just a portion of 2A then theoretically the states can do the same with all the other rights 1A, 5a etc,etc,. I never new that the bill of rights never applied to the states originally .They were incorporated in by the states constitutions and the courts at a later date. This case is so intertwined with all of the rights of the constitution that if the court tries to somehow deny that the states have to honor it it could cause a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have not seen since the great depression.

 

They would be hard pressed to do so in light of the fact that they have "Incorporated" Protections under the BoR to the states under the 14th ammendment referencing the 1st, 4th, 5th,6th, and a few others.....