• Round 2: District of Columbia v. Heller II - Revenge of Muh Guns
    31 replies, posted
[quote]The District of Columbia will do anything to stop law-abiding people from owning firearms to defend themselves.The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that D.C.’s 30-year handgun ban was unconstitutional in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision. In response, Washington’s city council put in place the most onerous gun registration requirement in the country. So Dick Heller is taking D.C. to court again in a case known as “Heller II.” Heller told me in a phone interview Tuesday that, “The city collected every gun restriction they could find from every other state and gave them to us as thumbtacks on the road for our march to Second Amendment freedom.” He is the lead plaintiff of five District residents who state that their constitutional rights are being infringed by the registration requirements. The city claims the process is necessary for “to protect police officers and to aid in crime control.” On Tuesday evening, the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Stephen Halbrook and Dan Peterson filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking Judge James Boasberg for summary judgment. The also asked for denial of the city’s request for summary judgment last month. The plaintiffs argue in the brief that, “These burdensome requirements appear calculated to discourage persons from registering firearms at all and, for those who do so, to snare them with expiration and re-registration deadlines that, if missed, would turn them into criminals.” The re-registration requirement starts on Jan. 1. Every gun owners who has registered a gun since 1976 will have to go to police headquarters to be fingerprinted and photographed. In Oct. 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the concept of what it called the “basic” registration of handguns, but not a requirement for long guns, which it termed “novel, not historic.” And the court questioned whether any registration of rifles and shotguns is constitutional. Long guns are rarely used in crimes. Rifles and shotguns were the murder weapon in only three cases in the most recent three years of available data in D.C. [/quote] [url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/11/dick-heller-challenges-dcs-gun-registration-files-/]Washington Times[/url] Attack Hughes Amendment, pls.
Regardless of where you stand on gun control, if the Supreme Court says that what you're doing is wrong you can't weasel out of it by only implementing their decision in the most technical sense. If the Supreme Court decided tomorrow that laws against marijuana use were unconstitutional, it wouldn't be right for states to then immediately pass legislation making it so difficult to get marijuana that it's effectively illegal. It's against the spirit of the law.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43158565]Regardless of where you stand on gun control, if the Supreme Court says that what you're doing is wrong you can't weasel out of it by only implementing their decision in the most technical sense. If the Supreme Court decided tomorrow that laws against marijuana use were unconstitutional, it wouldn't be right for states to then immediately pass legislation making it so difficult to get marijuana that it's effectively illegal. It's against the spirit of the law.[/QUOTE] That's not how it works. If the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was wrong, would you be okay with that? Would you feel that the ruling itself was wrong? Point being, the Supreme Court is not an all powerful entity worthy of your trust, trust is earned and I dunno about you but they haven't done a very good job of earning my trust.
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;43158651]That's not how it works. If the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was wrong, would you be okay with that? Would you feel that the ruling itself was wrong?[/QUOTE] I'd feel that the ruling has wrong but that doesn't mean a state should ignore the law. If you disagree with a ruling, you challenge it in court, but once a decision is made it's not right for the states to dismiss our legal system- their job is to enforce federal law and appeal if they wish, not try to circumvent the legal system. I mean you can't seriously be saying it would be okay for states to ignore [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States"]court decisions like these[/URL] right? Let's not forget that states deciding they didn't need to listen to the federal government started the bloodiest conflict in American history. The states don't have the right to ignore the Supreme Court because that would make the Supreme Court entirely impotent. They're certainly not always right (hell, just look at some of the earlier decisions on that list) but that's why we have due process and appeals.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43158685]I'd feel that the ruling has wrong but that doesn't mean a state should ignore the law. If you disagree with a ruling, you challenge it in court, but once a decision is made it's not right for the states to dismiss our legal system- their job is to enforce federal law and appeal if they wish, not try to circumvent the legal system. I mean you can't seriously be saying it would be okay for states to ignore [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States"]court decisions like these[/URL] right? Let's not forget that states deciding they didn't need to listen to the federal government started the bloodiest conflict in American history. The states don't have the right to ignore the Supreme Court because that would make the Supreme Court entirely impotent. They're certainly not always right (hell, just look at some of the earlier decisions on that list) but that's why we have due process and appeals.[/QUOTE] When it comes to challenging unjust laws the court will not budge on, yes, but only as a last resort. Quite frankly, any Government willing to wage war on it's people to secure unjust laws is unworthy of governing over them in the first place. Had the situation been reversed during the American Civil War, with the Confederacy fighting for states rights and the abolishment of slavery, then you would have a justifiable civil war. On an individual level, if you enforce an unjust law under the threat of inflicting violence upon me if I don't comply, you better be ready to follow through with that because I will be equally unkind if you do.
The Supreme Court would be better off if it was divided into Political Theories. Like you would have one Capitalist, one Communist, one Green, ect. It would allow for better management and discussion of how something would effect different political groups, as the effect on different political theories would also effect the people who abide by those theories.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43158685]I'd feel that the ruling has wrong but that doesn't mean a state should ignore the law. If you disagree with a ruling, you challenge it in court, but once a decision is made it's not right for the states to dismiss our legal system- their job is to enforce federal law and appeal if they wish, not try to circumvent the legal system. I mean you can't seriously be saying it would be okay for states to ignore [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States"]court decisions like these[/URL] right? Let's not forget that states deciding they didn't need to listen to the federal government started the bloodiest conflict in American history. The states don't have the right to ignore the Supreme Court because that would make the Supreme Court entirely impotent. They're certainly not always right (hell, just look at some of the earlier decisions on that list) but that's why we have due process and appeals.[/QUOTE] the problem here is that you're talking in "should" not in what they "do" honestly if you look at the entirety of american history, the supreme court doesn't actually matter very much. which is a bizarre thing to hear as an american. just look at all of the resistance to the decisions of brown v board of ed, against sweatt v painter, agaisnt roe v wade. anything that is in the least bit socially explosive tends to have a big backlash. it's really the small stuff that states don't have a vested political interest in that is obeyed by. the supreme court is effectively toothless without a strong social movement behind it.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43159457]The Supreme Court would be better off if it was divided into Political Theories. Like you would have one Capitalist, one Communist, one Green, ect. It would allow for better management and discussion of how something would effect different political groups, as the effect on different political theories would also effect the people who abide by those theories.[/QUOTE] Terrible idea
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43159457]The Supreme Court would be better off if it was divided into Political Theories. Like you would have one Capitalist, one Communist, one Green, ect. It would allow for better management and discussion of how something would effect different political groups, as the effect on different political theories would also effect the people who abide by those theories.[/QUOTE] ehhh no because law is supposed to operate within one framework: law. yes there is the legal realist perspective but legal decisions still need to be argued in a legal fashion. that's why we have dissenting opinions etc
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;43159225]When it comes to challenging unjust laws the court will not budge on, yes, but only as a last resort. Quite frankly, any Government willing to wage war on it's people to secure unjust laws is unworthy of governing over them in the first place. Had the situation been reversed during the American Civil War, with the Confederacy fighting for states rights and the abolishment of slavery, then you would have a justifiable civil war. On an individual level, if you enforce an unjust law under the threat of inflicting violence upon me if I don't comply, you better be ready to follow through with that because I will be equally unkind if you do.[/QUOTE] When has the federal government waged war on its people recently?
[QUOTE=plunger435;43160674]When has the federal government waged war on its people recently?[/QUOTE] I brought up the Civil War as an example of a conflict over states refusing to accept federal policy. [QUOTE=BrickInHead;43160504]the problem here is that you're talking in "should" not in what they "do"[/QUOTE] That is correct, but what they should be doing should be what determines whether this is right or wrong. The fact that something occurs doesn't automatically mean it is morally justified, only that it happens, right or wrong. If local governments [i]shouldn't[/i] ignore the Supreme Court, then DC [i]shouldn't[/i] be ignoring the Supreme Court and they're in the wrong. Whether other people have been wrong too isn't really relevant to the issue at hand.
[QUOTE=plunger435;43160674]When has the federal government waged war on its people recently?[/QUOTE] National guard killed a few protesters at Kent State during the Vietnam war.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43160730]I brought up the Civil War as an example of a conflict over states refusing to accept federal policy. That is correct, but what they should be doing should be what determines whether this is right or wrong. The fact that something occurs doesn't automatically mean it is morally justified, only that it happens, right or wrong. If local governments [i]shouldn't[/i] ignore the Supreme Court, then DC [i]shouldn't[/i] be ignoring the Supreme Court and they're in the wrong. Whether other people have been wrong too isn't really relevant to the issue at hand.[/QUOTE] i don't like the perspective of ultimate abeyance to the law simply because it assumes that law is infallible, of which it is not. law is a political process like any other. there's no real "right" or "wrong" in this. the supreme court has done nice things and it's done shitty things throughout its existence, and it's not tied directly to time. everything is relative to it - whether or not you agree with it (aka whether you determine its decisions to be "right" or "wrong") determines how you perceive the legitimacy of the court and how you seek to either underline or undermine its efforts. i do not think that it's [I]inherently[/I] wrong to disobey the law. if that were the truth, then the civil disobedience of individuals during the civil rights movement would be wrong. they disobeyed the orders of plessy v ferguson! do i think the actions of people fighting integration were wrong? yes, but I understand their desire to fight back against the establishment that they saw as fighting their way of life. and as such, i don't think it's [I]always[/I] wrong for states to try to disobey the superior law above them. if I did apply such a blanket statement, I'd have to be upset with Washington and Colorado and their legalization of marijuana. what i'm saying is that this whole idea of "right and wrong" in view of the court is basically [I]pointless[/I]. Don't look at the action of disobeying law as the source of right or wrong, look at the action itself. This reinforces with the fact that the court has no intrinsic power on its own. the court doesn't have a swat team to deploy to states to enforce that they abide by decisions. they also don't have the power of congress to supply any sort of money to hold as leverage. they have only the power of persuasion. and most of the time, their persuasion isn't going to be terribly strong against people who disagree with them. there's a couple of very good books on this subject if you're interested. i'm probably going to do my dissertation on legal and nonlegal mechanisms to solving human rights issues. i used to be SUPER pro court - thought it was the only way to get shit done, because i grew up in the nation that idolizes brown v board of ed. but as i continue my education, the court appears to be as flawed as damn near any mechanism that exists, and doesn't seem to hold the clout in realistic terms that i thought it did. look at [url=http://www.amazon.com/Rights-Talk-Impoverishment-Political-Discourse/dp/0029118239]rights talk[/url], [url=http://www.amazon.com/The-Cult-Of-Court/dp/0877228280]cult of the court[/url], and probably the best, [url=http://www.amazon.com/The-Hollow-Hope-American-Political/dp/0226726711]the hollow hope[/url].
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43160782]National guard killed a few protesters at Kent State during the Vietnam war.[/QUOTE] There's the Bonus Army too.
[QUOTE=plunger435;43160674]When has the federal government waged war on its people recently?[/QUOTE] ehm... [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege]Waco Siege - 87 Killed[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge]Ruby Ridge Standoff - 2 Killed/2 Wounded[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)]Battle of Athens - None dead, several wounded[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangeburg_massacre]Orangeburg Massacre[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States]Anything in this list. Pick and choose.[/url] I would go as far as to say that the Oklahoma City Bombings were revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge, and that ended up with an astronomical loss of life, and even had several members of the Militia Movement hunted down and arrested or killed.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43158565]Regardless of where you stand on gun control, if the Supreme Court says that what you're doing is wrong you can't weasel out of it by only implementing their decision in the most technical sense. If the Supreme Court decided tomorrow that laws against marijuana use were unconstitutional, it wouldn't be right for states to then immediately pass legislation making it so difficult to get marijuana that it's effectively illegal. It's against the spirit of the law.[/QUOTE] Not only that, the Supreme Court is so powerful it can mandate punishments on states that do that if it so wishes. It has to be my favorite branch of government. Imagine a board of incorruptible dictators that have opposing opinions deciding everything. That's essentially what they are.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;43161451]Not only that, the Supreme Court is so powerful it can mandate punishments on states that do that if it so wishes. It has to be my favorite branch of government. Imagine a board of incorruptible dictators that have opposing opinions deciding everything. That's essentially what they are.[/QUOTE] And several of them are openly corrupt. COUGH COUGH [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Antonin_Scalia%2C_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43160963]ehm... [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege]Waco Siege - 87 Killed[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge]Ruby Ridge Standoff - 2 Killed/2 Wounded[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)]Battle of Athens - None dead, several wounded[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangeburg_massacre]Orangeburg Massacre[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States]Anything in this list. Pick and choose.[/url] I would go as far as to say that the Oklahoma City Bombings were revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge, and that ended up with an astronomical loss of life, and even had several members of the Militia Movement hunted down and arrested or killed.[/QUOTE] The Militia movement is pretty insane though.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43159457]The Supreme Court would be better off if it was divided into Political Theories. Like you would have one Capitalist, one Communist, one Green, ect. It would allow for better management and discussion of how something would effect different political groups, as the effect on different political theories would also effect the people who abide by those theories.[/QUOTE] While the Supreme Court may be labelled as either conservative and liberal only, their ideologies are far from standard. The only thing that pushes politicians into heavy one side or other is just that: politics. The Supreme Court doesn't have to deal with that at all, they're elected for life. On pretty much every vote 'conservative' justices are known to approve of 'liberal' topics based on their personal opinion. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43161482]And several of them are openly corrupt. COUGH COUGH [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Antonin_Scalia%2C_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] That's very rare, and I'd say he's the only one. Even then, at least he's open about it :v: Since it's impossible to remove him from office he can afford to be open about it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43161502]The Militia movement is pretty insane though.[/QUOTE] It shouldn't be cracked down on unless they're literally breaking laws. They're given the go ahead in the constitution, and you can't pick and choose regarding that. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ForgottenKane;43161536]While the Supreme Court may be labelled as either conservative and liberal only, their ideologies are far from standard. The only thing that pushes politicians into heavy one side or other is just that: politics. The Supreme Court doesn't have to deal with that at all, they're elected for life. On pretty much every vote 'conservative' justices are known to approve of 'liberal' topics based on their personal opinion. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] That's very rare, and I'd say he's the only one. Even then, at least he's open about it :v: [b]Since it's impossible to remove him from office he can afford to be open about it.[/b][/QUOTE] That's pretty much my gripe.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;43161536] That's very rare, and I'd say he's the only one. Even then, at least he's open about it :v: Since it's impossible to remove him from office he can afford to be open about it.[/QUOTE] Clarence Thomas has taken, or at least been under suspicion of having taken, bribes in the past and falsifying and lying on his taxes.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43161663] That's pretty much my gripe.[/QUOTE] The problem is that if we were to give them term limits, that would - in theory mind you - increase corruption. Our political system as it is already has immense amounts of lying and corruption because these politicians will do anything in their power to remain in office. The Supreme Court obviously doesn't have to worry about this. Now of course corruption is always going to be a part of any system that involves power, this is inevitable, so the primary goal should always be reduction, not elimination. Because of this, I do think the Supreme Court is one of the least corrupt branches of government (in my opinion). You guys also have to realize that there are other justices, which all have equal power with the next, so bribing one still far from guarantees you from getting anything done in the Supreme Court. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43161693]Clarence Thomas has taken, or at least been under suspicion of having taken, bribes in the past and falsifying and lying on his taxes.[/QUOTE] The single one thing that can get rid of a Supreme Court justice off of his chair is a strong criminal conviction. If he in fact does lie on his taxes and so on, and is caught, he can be stripped of his power I'm pretty sure. This isn't stated in the constitution at all - in fact, it specifically states that [i]it's impossible for the justices to be removed from office[/i] - but I'm almost certain it's an implicit rule. In the case of Clarence Thomas, the closest he's come to corruption was lying on his tax returns. He basically told them his wife doesn't exist ( :v: ), so I don't think he's going anywhere anytime soon, nor should this affect his decisions on the Supreme Court. Some say that his voting in favor of a group that donated to his wife's political group is signs of corruption, but I honestly thing that's his legitimate opinion on the matter. Hell, why else would the group donate if they didn't like him too?
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;43162016]Hell, why else would the group donate if they didn't like him too?[/QUOTE] Because they wanted to buy a vote in the supreme court. Why else would he lie about his wife's income on his tax returns.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43161502]The Militia movement is pretty insane though.[/QUOTE] Having disdain for your imperialistic government and utilizing constitutional rights = insane
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43161663]It shouldn't be cracked down on unless they're literally breaking laws. They're given the go ahead in the constitution, and you can't pick and choose regarding that.[/QUOTE] Militias already exist. Those are the state militias. Most of the others are pretty much white supremacists or drunken weirdoes with vaguely extremist and paranoid political views and engage in illegal activities.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43162178]Militias already exist. Those are the state militias. Most of the others are pretty much white supremacists or drunken weirdoes with vaguely extremist and paranoid political views and engage in illegal activities.[/QUOTE] Sure there are those out there, but you bringing it up is just a strawman. And a "militia" is not restricted to a state militia. It can be in whatever form it wants to be.
[QUOTE=Aman;43162175]Having disdain for your imperialistic government and utilizing constitutional rights = insane[/QUOTE] If the militias running things is the alternative to what is in existence right now, I think I would prefer the government. Also the Militia movement isn't really protected by the constitution. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman;43162191]Sure there are those out there, but you bringing it up is just a strawman. And a "militia" is not restricted to a state militia. It can be in whatever form it wants to be.[/QUOTE] The constitution outright says that the militias are to be "well-regulated". The militia movement militias are disorganized random groups. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] Also in most countries around the world (and generally in American states), paramilitary organizations are illegal.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43162206]If the militias running things is the alternative to what is in existence right now, I think I would prefer the government. Also the Militia movement isn't really protected by the constitution. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] The constitution outright says that the militias are to be "well-regulated". The militia movement militias are disorganized random groups. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] Also in most countries around the world (and generally in American states), paramilitary organizations are illegal.[/QUOTE] On the whole though, militias are not a serious threat. It's only when you get to the survivalist, anti-federal loonies up in Montana that you start worrying, and those guys are few and far between. What about militias that coordinate and work closely with local law enforcement? Do you define them as "disorganized and random"?
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;43162353]On the whole though, militias are not a serious threat. It's only when you get to the survivalist, anti-federal loonies up in Montana that you start worrying, and those guys are few and far between. What about militias that coordinate and work closely with local law enforcement? Do you define them as "disorganized and random"?[/QUOTE] You mean the National Guard?
The National Guard is not a militia.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.