I am the Devil's advocate

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Yunus, Jun 29, 2010.

  1. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    Anyone who has been here a while knows that I play Devil's advocate. I do this as a measure of prevention no matter what anyone else thinks. Even with the victory yesterday in the SCOTUS there are possible negatives.

    So I ask, does anyone agree with or have similar concerns as I do. With the ruling on Monday the SCOTUS basically said the constitution trumps state and local laws. We all rejoice because of 2A. However we now have all our eggs in the federal basket. Slim as the chances may be a new amendment repealing 2A or something of that nature would effectively mean a federal ban on firearm ownership in this country. Before Monday's ruling it could be argued that the 2A did not apply to the states and only applied to the federal government, we can't make that argument anymore. So while I see it as a victory, I also look to the possibility that it could be used against us.

    What say you, am I crazy? (For thinking this, not crazy in general) I don't see it happening but I do fear the federal government because it is a mindless entity that serves itself and answers to (sadly) itself. It's supposed to answer to the people but that has been twisted and distorted over the last 200+ years into a system that serves the system.
     
  2. IGETEVEN

    IGETEVEN New Member

    8,358
    4
    0
    "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!"

    I can't speak for anyone else, but the clear line that we all know that separates the good guys from the bad guys, will no doubt become blurred, crossed several times and ignored, like a well used Mexico/United States Border crossing.

    I will have a black hat...and guns! ;)

    YMMV

    Jack
     

  3. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    I'll ride with ya, EVEN!!
     
  4. spittinfire

    spittinfire New Member Supporter

    9,663
    2
    0
    I"m with you. The federal government doesn't have the authority to make that decision, even though they want to. I've been saying this for years. Local rules county, county rules state, state rules federal. Who here can say their state isn't waiting for Federal funding? Which county isn't waiting for state funding? Is your city waiting on word from the county? The whole system is bass ackwards!!!
     
  5. Jpyle

    Jpyle New Member

    4,828
    0
    0
    The 2A restricts the government from infringing upon an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not, and cannot, grant that right. What happened Monday was that the court incorporated the prohibitions of the 2A to the state and local governments under the 14A's Due Process clause. At this point I believe that the toothpaste is out of the tube and nothing short of civil war will change a word of the Second Amendment.
     
  6. Pat-inCO

    Pat-inCO New Member

    128
    0
    0
    Easy fix. Recycle Congress. Vote Green.

    [​IMG]


    Solve the "problem" before it can happen.
     
  7. dewey

    dewey New Member

    73
    0
    0
    Yunis, great question.

    Jplyle, perfect answer.
     
  8. DrumJunkie

    DrumJunkie New Member

    4,823
    0
    0
    For the most part the feds have believed that they trump states laws and have since the civil war. In this case people are happy to see this. I'm not so sure if this would be such a popular thing in other areas.

    So even though I'm happy to see that the 2A has been supported (somewhat) The down the road implication are a little troublesome. What should have been handed down from the SCOTUS is the Constitution says this and this is what we'll go by. With the idea that each little aspect of the 2A not to go through the courts we just might see some "common sense regulations" to the 2A. This decision pretty much says now the Constitution can be interpreted line by line in the courts. And the stated that stand on their sovereignty to buck any decision later might be in for trouble.

    Many think it's civil unrest that the feds want to give them an excuse to lock everyone down. The conspiracy crowds are already tightening their tin foil hats. Three years ago I would have called them all crazy. But with all that's happened the last 18 months. I'm not sure how surprised I would be anymore.
     
  9. pandamonium

    pandamonium New Member

    1,601
    0
    0
    On another thread Pat-inCo posted a link to an article on the Institute for Justice website, that was a good read. There is another article on that site that explains alot of how this works, meaning how the scotus interperprets the Constitution and Bill of Right, it's 18 pages but it gives great insight to how the scotus works. IMO it is worth the time to read.


    http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/neily.pdf
     
  10. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    As long as there is more than one lawyer or judge running around, there will be more than one way to interpret law. Any law. Even one as straightforward as 2A.

    Does the potential exist for bad things in the future? Sure. We could lose a conservative jurist on the Supreme Court and Obama could appoint someone else as bad as Kagan and then the balance flips to the leftist idiots who could revisit the issue and turn it around.

    There's no chance of 2A being repealed in this current climate, but it's always a possibility in the future. But thus far, NONE of the first ten amendments have been repealed or modified since they were written.

    What's likely to happen in some locales is they will stretch the subjective term "reasonable" used in the ruling and keep bad gun control laws in place.
     
  11. Jo da Plumbr

    Jo da Plumbr New Member

    4,492
    0
    0
    They done streched that reasonable BS around here already.:eek:
     
  12. gorknoids

    gorknoids New Member

    2,396
    0
    0
    This decision, along with the Obama outrage over Arizona's decision to throw the BS flag and take on the illegalista hordes on their own have forced Americans to realize that Washington serves Washington, and no one else. That the venue was Obama's natal political greenhouse makes it all the sweeter.
    We are the "United StateS" of America, not the "United State".
     
  13. pandamonium

    pandamonium New Member

    1,601
    0
    0
    Well said Gork, I concur, 100%.
     
  14. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    I agree with you Gork, but aren't we praising the courts recent decision which reduced the power of the StateS to a power held by the State?
     
  15. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    Could they try to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Sure. The process is drawn out and difficult. It would require a new Amendment be ratified by 3/4's of the states. I seriously doubt that will happen. Only one Amendment has ever been repealed (the 18th). There have only been 17 Amendments approved (ratified) since the adoption of the Constitution in 1791 (which included the first 10 Amendments, The Bill of Rights).

    Over
     
  16. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    In the context of only the first 10 amendments, yes. In the context of 14A, no.

    Should a state have the authority to ban all media and internet discussion of a political party or candidate(s)? Most would agree that would be an infringement of 1A and that it is wrong. You can argue two things here. First, if a state did this (and some states DID elevate some religions over others and ban certain publications), the citizens of that state should rise up against their oppressive government and toss them out on their cans; we should not rely on Big Daddy Federal Government to come to the rescue. Second, one could argue that 14A was never legally ratified (it wasn't) and that it and anything based on it is a nullity. Reality being what it is, however, that isn't going to fly.

    I take your point: we are applauding a big, central government stepping in and setting rules for states that fall OUTSIDE the body of the Constitution and which rest solely on 14a.