How can the supreme court still need to decide on the right to keep and bare arms ?

Question

with the recent washington d.c. case possibly coming before the court i find it hard to believe that they will do the proper, legal thing and declare gun rights both a state and individual right. The constitution makes it pretty clear, as do the individual writings of many of the framers that while the states do indeed need the right to a well organized militia, that those militias historically and today are made up of un-enlisted free individuals and that historically (both at the time the constitution was written, and today around the world) those individual brought thier own weapons to battle. All of this is particularly easy for the court to decide in this day and age as currently the federal gov. controls the states national guard units, they are only headed by an officer appointed by the individual states. Under the constitution this would make the militias arms of the federal gov. and therefor not militias. federal troops not likely to fight fed troops!

Rick, that is the basic problem, the supreme court thinking it can decide what the constitution says, when in truth the constitution and the framers said what they said and made clear their intent. People like you, who seem willing to just accept the lies, make the problem worse. We are not talking about legislation here, but the constitution, which if allowed to be manipulated the same as our regular laws, will be destroyed, meaningless. Oh, sorry about the "bared" arms.

Answer 1

In general, I agree with richard, except judging by his other posts, his thoughts are worth more than 5 bucks.

Note to Nicholas:WOW! Stare Decisis to the nth degree. Bright-line rule? check. Smart? well, look up Dred Scott and you tell me.

Answer 2

The Constitution says what the Supreme Court interprets it as saying.

Recent Court rulings, while they've skipped around the core question, have been tending to come down more and more on the side of the 2nd being an individual, rather than collective, right. Accordingly, I *expect* the Court to uphold the court ruling striking down the ban. However, with my opinion, plus about $5, you can buy a cup of coffee outside the courthouse :-)

Richard

Nancy - you're completely wrong. SCOTUS is NOT the court of first impression for cases in the District. This case itself is an appeal from a ruling from the US Circuit Court, which was itself an appeal from District court.

Finally, although the "immediate" effect of the Supreme court upholding the Circuit court in Parker would apply only to Parker himself, a ruling by the supreme Court is binding precedent throughout the country. Although the ruling would not strike down State laws on the subject, it would require any judge, in any other court, anywhere in the US, to rule on a challenge to such a law in a manner consistent with their verdict.

Answer 3

It all depends on how many Supreme Court Judges retire and who is in the White House. The President can nominate a replacement judge and that replacement will be of the same opinion of that party. A Supreme Court can overturn any decision. Even Roe vs Wade!

Answer 4

The Supreme Court has a way of wiggling out of these broad constitutional cases by nitpicking on one small aspect of the law, and ignoring the big 2nd Amendment issue.

I bet you by when this case is finally decided, the 2nd Amendment issue will still be every bit as cloudy as it is now.

Answer 5

easily i think of there has been a regulation outlawing handguns in DC for a at the same time as now. there grew to become right into a information tale some Virginia consultant that had something take place and it grew to become into revealed he grew to become into taking a handgun into artwork with him in DC. He claimed that he grew to become into no longer in violation of the regulation on account that he grew to become into leaving his domicile state the place it grew to become into felony and going onto government sources the place the regulation does not stick to. it could additionally be that case that has delivered the regulation earlier the amazing court docket. shape has been ineffective for a protracted time. Its unique purpose grew to become into smashed completely after the amazing court docket shifted the skill from the states to the Fed. As for the takeover of all those various powers, its no longer that straightforward. I hear all approximately those issues perpetually, yet those asserting it are consistently incorrect. I in no way hear a unmarried retraction whilst they declare something has or will take place, yet no longer something ever comes of it. awaken! provide up annoying approximately it! What do you think of you're able to do besides whether they do exist? merely enable it pass and stay a happier lifestyles with out fearing each and every thing.

Answer 6

In my opinion, once the supreme court issues a ruling on something that ruling should be final. The supreme court should never have the power to contradict or alter its position on a previous ruling. If there's a problem with a law the supreme court has ruled on and it needs to be changed then the law needs to be changed via the constitutional government our founding fathers created.

Answer 7

I disagree with your interpretation. I wouldn't call a bunch of gun nuts in camouflage a "well regulated militia". I believe that's supposed to be the national guard of each state. And in this day and age, they provide the weapons to their troops.

I don't see any compelling reason to protect individuals' rights to own handguns when there are so many gun deaths every year.

Answer 8

No, you don't have the right to wear a tank top, it is not the "right to bare arms".