close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Why would the supreme court even look at the second amendment again?

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by frank4570, Sep 30, 2012.

  1. frank4570

    frank4570

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    15,508
    Likes Received:
    8
    It was a long time coming before the supreme finally agreed to look at the second amendment. Then finally did and they made their decision. I really think MOST of the country pretty much agrees with what they said.
    Lots of people keep talking about what would happen if we end up with more liberal supreme court justices.
    But is it even realistic that they would have any reason to change the decision they just made?
     
  2. Restless28

    Restless28

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    16,152
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Solsbury Hill
    If you believe most of what you read here, then the answer is yes.

    If you actually think for yourself, the answer is no.
     

  3. JBnTX

    JBnTX

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    21,151
    Likes Received:
    5,802
    The anti-gunners will never give up.

    When it comes to a Supreme Court full of liberal activist judges, anything can happen.
     
  4. samurairabbi

    samurairabbi Dungeon Schmuck

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1998
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    A future court may be willing to find "limitations" in the findings of the Heller and McDonald decisions. Such a process would be slow, but it has happened before in Supreme Court history.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2012
  5. cheapshot

    cheapshot

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2011
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    14
    Can, and will happen!
     
  6. Restless28

    Restless28

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    16,152
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Solsbury Hill
    What else does your crystal ball say?
     
  7. ClydeG19

    ClydeG19

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    1,553
    Location:
    Arizona
    The court needs a pretty good reason to hear a case pertaining to the 2A given the Heller ruling. They may hear cases clarifying Heller, but it's unlikely to be completely overturned. Kind of like Roe vs Wade...even with a conservative court it's unlikely to be overturned.
     
  8. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    44,572
    Likes Received:
    12,957
    Location:
    Kentucky
    They refused to look at it for 200 years because they didn't want to. Guess what it takes for them to look again? They (a majority of the justices) decide they want to.

    The Supreme Court averages reversing its own decisions more than twice a year, according to a quick search.

    So, why would they look again?

    Because they get at least 5 justices who want to and because there are practically no consequences for the Democrats if the Supreme Court can be convinced to make the 2nd Amendment meaningless - nobody loses jobs, like when congress does it, because the court has lifetime appointments and the worst that can be said is "a democrat nominated him." Pretty attractive possibility for anti-gunners.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2012
  9. badge315

    badge315

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,392
    Likes Received:
    502
    Location:
    Middleburg, FL
    While it's true that no possibility should be discounted, it seems unlikely to me that Heller would overturned...at least in the near future. I'm pretty sure that the SCOTUS cannot take it upon themselves and say, "We changed our minds and are reversing our previous decision". Another relevant case would have to be brought before them to rule upon...and that's going to take a while.
     
  10. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    44,572
    Likes Received:
    12,957
    Location:
    Kentucky
    What rule is that? The only "reason" the court requires is that somebody has a case that involves the 2nd amendment in any way and they decide to hear it. Could be a pro-gun or anti-gun lawsuit, could be an appeal of a criminal case, where the criminal says his 2nd Amendment rights were violaetd by prosecuting him for possessing a gun. Opportunities for them to decide the issue come up every week, if not every day.

    Yes, they have to have an actual case, but criminals move for cert on their appeals every day. It would only take a month to find the case to reverse it if they really, really wanted to make sure they picked a good one.

    Since March of 2008, Heller has been cited in other cases 3,850 times. 130 of those citations were "negative" meaning that they disagreed with Heller, or what Westlaw labesl as: "Called into doubt," "Distingushed" or "Declined to extend" (refused to apply Heller to the case before the court). A quick look says that in the first 10 or so I looked at, once was from the 9th Circuit, the most liberal and anti-gun federal circuit, and they found the second amendment did not apply to a "homemade machinegun" - all it takes is 5 votes for the Supreme Court to pull that case up and decide they were wrong or to limit Heller until it is meaningless.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2012
  11. frank4570

    frank4570

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    15,508
    Likes Received:
    8
    HOLY CRAP.:shocked:

    Ok, now I'm concerned.
     
  12. M&P Shooter

    M&P Shooter Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    10,639
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Phila, PA
    Because Obama is our creator and master:whistling:
     
  13. vikingsoftpaw

    vikingsoftpaw DEPLORABLE ME!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Location:
    Willoughby, Ohio USA
    There is a term, 'Framing the Argument' used by liberals/progressives. It is a way of presenting the same old argument in a new light to make it more palatable.

    When liberals cannot accomplish their means at the ballot box, they use the courts to ram down everybody's throats.

    So the answer is Yes.
     
  14. frank4570

    frank4570

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    15,508
    Likes Received:
    8
    I guess I also was a little tunnel visioned on how I have been looking at this.
     
  15. dango

    dango

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    4,613
    Likes Received:
    5
    Seems to me everything started from the "Patriot-Act"".
    Gave them the right to do and sign into action anything they want.
    Don't think they can't cause if we don't stop them,they can do whatever "WE" let them !
     
  16. Restless28

    Restless28

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    16,152
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Solsbury Hill
    Thank God we had Republicans to protect us. :upeyes:
     
  17. frank4570

    frank4570

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    15,508
    Likes Received:
    8
    Yeah, that monstrosity really did push our rights off a cliff.
     
  18. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    44,572
    Likes Received:
    12,957
    Location:
    Kentucky
    We're talking about the judicial branch/Supreme Court. You're talking about the executive branch. The Supreme Court has always had the "right to do and sign into action anything they want" as long as they can make a constitutional argument for it and, when necessary, they based that on things that aren't even stated in the constitution. The "right to privacy" for example, is one they made up because it was kind of implied by the joint effect of the bill of rights, more or less.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2012
  19. JW1178

    JW1178

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,452
    Likes Received:
    269
    Exactly. The reason Heller sued was because DC said it was collective right and Heller said it was an individual right. Heller won. Since he was suing DC, the city courts were not qualified to to so it went to the supreme court. So basically, someone is going to have to make a case of why individuals shouldn't be allowed to own a gun and how it's a collective right. That's going to be very hard.

    OR of course, make another adm to over-ride that.

    The "Patriot" act is probably the greatest threats to our freedom since the the War of 1812. When you give the government the right to overide the law and constitution you are opening the door to a whole lot of terrible things. What president did that? What party? The Republicans wonder why the country has lost faith in them. The only thing they have going for them is they are the lesser of the two evils but not by much.

    End the Patriot Act and Executive Priveleges and we can all sleep a bit better at night.
     
  20. 9jeeps

    9jeeps

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,411
    Likes Received:
    1,613
    Location:
    PNW
    Not to worry. Obama will appoint new SCOTUS Justices his next term then you won't have to concern yourselves with a Second Amendment.