Skip to main content

View Diary: We've Moved On, with Gun Control discussion (40 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's a proposal that't out there, and SCOTUS (0+ / 0-)

    has upheld the law.  So if the law is wrong, let's work to fix that too.  If we know who is on the list, and we allow them to obtain weapons, this is an argument for fixing something, isn't it?

    Republicans are like alligators. All mouth and no ears.

    by Ohiodem1 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:03:16 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  SCOTUS has upheld the law. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      OK, fine. So I take it you're also okay with Heller and McDonald?

      •  ClevelandAttorney makes a fairly thorough (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kestrel9000, a2nite

        analysis of Heller and Mcdonald here.

        I don't see much in Heller that I disagree with.  Do you, and if so, what?

        I haven't seen enough on McDonald to take a position either way on it.  What do you find objectionable about it?  You may enlighten me since you appear to be much closer to this than I am.  I may wind up disagreeing with you, but I enjoy hearing well-reasoned opinions.

        Republicans are like alligators. All mouth and no ears.

        by Ohiodem1 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:58:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Heller (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ohiodem1, oldpunk, FrankRose

          is about where it needs to be. I've actually seen people say they think it doesn't go far enough. I do, I think it's okay as decided.

          District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).
          The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. This prohibition would fail constitutional muster under any standard of scrutiny. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is therefore unconstitutional.
          But Heller only applied to federal enclaves. Washington, DC, in the instant case. McDonald expanded that to the states.
          McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), was a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
          I agree with both decisions. But even if I didn't (Citizens United? Bueller? Bueller?) they would still be law.
        •  oh, and I also found (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ohiodem1

          Cleveland Attorney's diary to be worthy. I recommended it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site