Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: Open Thread (320 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Before you root against stare decisis, you may (6+ / 0-)

    wish to stop and consider the fact that Roe is one poorly timed death/retirement away from repeal.

    You also wish to consider that all SCOTUS has said (to date) on the 2nd amendment is that a blanket prohibition on the ownership of handguns is unconstitutional.  Nothing else has been litigated at that level as of yet.

    This begs the question: Do you desire to see such bans upheld by the court, or do you have no clue what Heller and McDonald actually said?  If the former then you're pretty far outside the mainstream of even the Democratic Party, never mind the American electorate as a whole.

    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

    by Crookshanks on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 03:44:31 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Since it seems that you are arguing for repeal of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Roe v. Wade, you should write a diary on this. Why else would you bring up Roe v. Wade when someone talks abut the Second Amendment? I mean other than to say gun control is equal to anti abortion zealots. That may be a very popular line in the gun business, but I suspect it may not be so popular on this website.  Women have been exploited and discriminated against for centuries, now they have some (limited) control over their bodies and you are drawing parallels that and firearms regulation is equal to taking all choice away from women?  Wow, just wow.

      “In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it … we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

      by DefendOurConstitution on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 09:35:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Stare Decisis. (6+ / 0-)
        is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."[2] In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters.
      •  Do you hurt yourself when stretching (6+ / 0-)

        for that distant horizon, D.O.C.?

        Crookshanks comment has been made by "your side" regarding Thomas and Alito on firearms law:  

        FFS, if one of them just died or retired, all this gun bullshit would go away, as Obama's next appointment would vacate SYG, Castle, Concealed Carry and handgun/semi-auto/big magazine possession as soon as possible.  
        Five to four, and up your ass Roberts.

        Let's say Ruth Bader decides to retire, and Obama gets one by the Senate.  Most Justices, true-to-form, become increasingly independent of "their masters".  
        No guarantee, that on legal principal alone, the Right to Privacy - extrapolated from the 4th Amendment (the one we've ignored with the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act) - will be upheld on other substantive issues:
        "Being secure in person and effects".

        Let's say there's a case before the SCOTUS: US v. Jane Doe involving searches done by the Government's 3-letter agencies.  (TSA, ICE, DEA, et al).

        The Court, with Obama's new appointee, accepted the claimed "compelling interest" of the Government; and in this case, the State and/or Contractor in detaining Ms. Doe, and forcing a body search upon her.

        Thus vacating a woman's right to personal, ie: corpus, privacy.

        A majority opinion, delivered by a fire-breathing big government is good, liberal democrat, who also believes the 4th Amendment doesn't apply against firearm searches... due to "compelling interest".  
        Bloomberg et al, in the Stop-n-Frisk argument would be an excellent example of cited "compelling interest".

        Be careful of what you wish-for.

        The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

        by 43north on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 06:51:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site