Trapshooters Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,552 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state." Are you friggin serious?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,587 Posts
I haven't read it yet, but it seems like a plus that the only vote against was based on applicability to DC, instead of saying the 2nd amendment did not apply to the general populace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,552 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
the thread that was in response to was pulled (probably due to duplicate threads on the topic), just so you guys know why i posted what I did
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,449 Posts
which is why I never understood why people would start another thread instead of responding to the first. We have about 5 threads on this same subject now, two with almost identical titles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
I read about the decision, but have not actually read the official version. However, if what skeet_man says is correct, (and there is no reason to doubt him)the reasoning of the dissent is curious.

The 2nd Amendment was originally passed as a FEDERAL law, and is one of only two amendments not specifically "incorporated" into the Constitution (by the US Supreme Court) as being applicable to the states. (The other is the 3rd Amendment regarding the housing of military personnel in private homes.)

The incorporation argument is something like this: if the amendment is NOT incorporated into the consitution, it applies ONLY to the FEDERAL government, not to the states. Thus, carrying that premiss further, if your state does not have a specific STATE Constitutional right to bear arms, you don't have one. I don't necessarily endorse that logic, but it is possibly true... you never know how a court may rule (unless they are "liberal" then you know gun owners lose).

Now, since DC is NOT a state, it is subject ONLY to FEDERAL law... there ARE NO state laws there. Thus, the dissent's argument is logical ONLY if the dissenting Justice is a LIBERAL, and the decision is made from a POLITICAL, not LEGAL perspective.

As someone pointed out we don't know who will be President in 2 years. Hopefully, someone will appeal this to the Supremes. If they accept cert, we'll at least get a ruling, and hopefully it will be favorable. If they do not accept cert, at least the DC ruling will stand for the DC circuit, and might influence a few other circuits to rule similarly... except of course for California. Those guys are probably screwed without a Supreme Court ruling.
Perhaps the reason no gun case has gone to the Supreme Court since Miller in 1938 is that ever since Roosevelt packed the court in the 1930's, the court has been leaning left until now.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top