National The people behind the recent 9th Cir/Hawaii carry case

[Diamondback]

Possibly a third with "Machine Gun Sammy" Alito. What do we know about his history and why he got that nickname?

 

[Slobray]

Possibly a third with "Machine Gun Sammy" Alito. What do we know about his history and why he got that nickname?

United States v. Rybar - Wikipedia
FindLaw's United States Third Circuit case and opinions.



Ray

 

[Hawaiian]

As pointed out by others in this thread, Heller left reasonable restrictions beyond an outright ban on the 2A open. By declining to accept appeals on these 2A cases I believe they are leaving the restrictions up to the states. We often argue for states rights and this seems to be how they are handling it.

 

[etrain16]

As pointed out by others in this thread, Heller left reasonable restrictions beyond an outright ban on the 2A open. By declining to accept appeals on these 2A cases I believe they are leaving the restrictions up to the states. We often argue for states rights and this seems to be how they are handling it.

I agree with state's rights, I prefer many things be handled at the state level as the federal government can't always create laws that work in various places with various concerns.

That being said, this is a federal concern because it's a right that's plainly spelled out in the constitution - a right for all Americans, regardless of what state they live in. There are some areas where the states don't have the authority to supersede the federal government, and I think this is one area they shouldn't. When it comes to the BOR, no state should have the right to restrict access to those rights, really in any way.

Looking at the text of the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I don't see in any way that the 2nd amendment is delegated to the states, but rather seems pretty obviously a federal issue since it applies equally to all Americans, just like the first and the others in the BOR. There is no mention in the 2nd that it applies based on how states choose to interpret it. It should be a clear cut case that the 2nd should be able to be freely exercised, by all American citizens, regardless of the state they live, work or travel in. What good is our constitution, the BOR, if any state has the power to restrict and override it? What rights, really, do we have, if any state, at their own whim, can summarily choose to ignore them? I just don't get how folks, even at the highest court level, are able to twist such a simple ideal.

Now, if the 2nd amendment said something to the effect of "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless the courts or the state legislature says otherwise..." it would be a different story. State's rights were enumerated after the 1st and the 2nd. Seems to me, those were clearly expected to apply to every citizen, regardless of location. Now, the federal government may be able to justify restrictions on the 2nd, but states shouldn't have that individual ability.

 

[Stomper]

I agree with state's rights, I prefer many things be handled at the state level as the federal government can't always create laws that work in various places with various concerns.

That being said, this is a federal concern because it's a right that's plainly spelled out in the constitution - a right for all Americans, regardless of what state they live in. There are some areas where the states don't have the authority to supersede the federal government, and I think this is one area they shouldn't. When it comes to the BOR, no state should have the right to restrict access to those rights, really in any way.

Looking at the text of the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I don't see in any way that the 2nd amendment is delegated to the states, but rather seems pretty obviously a federal issue since it applies equally to all Americans, just like the first and the others in the BOR. There is no mention in the 2nd that it applies based on how states choose to interpret it. It should be a clear cut case that the 2nd should be able to be freely exercised, by all American citizens, regardless of the state they live, work or travel in. What good is our constitution, the BOR, if any state has the power to restrict and override it? What rights, really, do we have, if any state, at their own whim, can summarily choose to ignore them? I just don't get how folks, even at the highest court level, are able to twist such a simple ideal.

Now, if the 2nd amendment said something to the effect of "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless the courts or the state legislature says otherwise..." it would be a different story. State's rights were enumerated after the 1st and the 2nd. Seems to me, those were clearly expected to apply to every citizen, regardless of location. Now, the federal government may be able to justify restrictions on the 2nd, but states shouldn't have that individual ability.

How do the courts twist them, you ask?

Easy, the "courts" are just a bunch of lawyers wearing black robes. Lawyers twist, and parse words for a living. They don't have to be right, they just have to win.