More on the NRA and McDonald v. Chicago

[ZachS]

From Reason mag - an interesting dissection of why all of the legal maneuvering's taking place.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/10/the-nra-muscles-into-mcdonald/

Read More

 

[Hawaiian]

That was an interesting read. Thanks.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

From Reason mag - an interesting dissection of why all of the legal maneuvering's taking place.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/10/the-nra-muscles-into-mcdonald/

Hey there ZachS,
Thanks for bringing this case to my attention. This article refers to the 1872 Supreme Court case called "The Slaughterhouse Cases" as part of the controversy of McDonald v. Chicago. I've read and studied this case in the past and McDonald is very frightening if you've had an opportunity to become familiar with what the Slaughterhouse opinion says.

Have you had a chance to read that case? It IS very interesting and it says quite a bit about the types of citizenship that exist in this country (yes, there is more than one form of citizenship) and the level of constitutional protections afforded to each, under the Constitution.

If you read that case, I'd be curious to know if your reasons for why you think the dissection is interesting, changes. Slaughterhouse is one of those cases that all public members should have been made very well informed about in school. I know I had to stumble onto it myself.

 

[ZachS]

Hey there ZachS,
Thanks for bringing this case to my attention. This article refers to the 1872 Supreme Court case called "The Slaughterhouse Cases" as part of the controversy of McDonald v. Chicago. I've read and studied this case in the past and McDonald is very frightening if you've had an opportunity to become familiar with what the Slaughterhouse opinion says.

Have you had a chance to read that case? It IS very interesting and it says quite a bit about the types of citizenship that exist in this country (yes, there is more than one form of citizenship) and the level of constitutional protections afforded to each, under the Constitution.

If you read that case, I'd be curious to know if your reasons for why you think the dissection is interesting, changes. Slaughterhouse is one of those cases that all public members should have been made very well informed about in school. I know I had to stumble onto it myself.

I think the Reason article was interesting because it talks about the political maneuvering surrounding this case. Nothing more, nothing less.

Took a look at the Slaughterhouse Cases... old and long enough to give me a headache, and not required for class. I promise you I'll read them soon.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

I think the Reason article was interesting because it talks about the political maneuvering surrounding this case. Nothing more, nothing less.

Took a look at the Slaughterhouse Cases... old and long enough to give me a headache, and not required for class. I promise you I'll read them soon.

Cool. Personally, I'm very worried about what I've read about McDonald because of the casual dismissiveness of "The Slaughterhouse Cases" (SC's) being displayed by the parties.

SC's is actually the title the Court gave to one case. There were a whole bunch of cases brought by independent butchers against the authorities of Louisiana regarding slaughterhouses and they were similar enough that the Supreme Court just bundled all those cases into one case for efficiency and called the resulting matter before it "The Slaughterhouse Cases".

The SC case is old, true enough. But the fact that it is old is not a handicap. Actually, the fact that its age (4 years after the 14th Amendment's ratification) places it, historically, in the front row view of being able to examine and determine the influences that went into the intent of the amendment's creation contemporarily with its drafters, makes it a hugely valuable resource for understanding the amendment's intended scope and purpose and specifically what it infers about our status as "citizens" today, who now are constantly having to defend what should only be at risk if the 2nd Amendment itself were under threat of being amended or abolished.

The SC's ruling addresses a part of our history that is extremely charged (the Civil War/slavery/status of former slaves), both then and now. When you compare its findings to where our society is today, many aspects of our society have a hard time being reconciled with those findings. It forces the reader, to ask some serious questions about exactly who or what we are in modern times, in the eyes of the law, as Americans.

As a specific example, when you compare it's message to how our gun rights are constantly under attack nowadays by people who clearly feel that our rights can simply be legislated away from us without regard to the plain intent of the 2nd Amendment's language, you can begin to understand how the law can be outshined by creative political maneuvering, under the pretense of protection under the 14th Amendment.

I'm willing to explain what I mean by "pretense", if you want me to.

 

[ZachS]

As a specific example, when you compare it's message to how our gun rights are constantly under attack nowadays by people who clearly feel that our rights can simply be legislated away from us without regard to the plain intent of the 2nd Amendment's language, you can begin to understand how the law can be outshined by creative political maneuvering, under the pretense of protection under the 14th Amendment.

I'm willing to explain what I mean by "pretense", if you want me to.

I know what you mean.

Not interested in starting a debate, but I doubt the genie's going back in the bottle on this one.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

I know what you mean.

Not interested in starting a debate, but I doubt the genie's going back in the bottle on this one.

Yep that genie is a big one. Problem is is that we're spinning our wheels as The People if we just go on ignoring those big genies in the corner of our living room. It's those kinds of genies that are the fountain of most of the issues that we spend lots of time griping about and making little progress on.