SC agrees to hear another 2nd case

[Texas Solo]

Lots of folks thought that the Heller decision would be the end all case, but guess again. From where else but Chitcago.

High court to look at local gun control laws - Yahoo! News

 

[Texas1911]

Guess people didn't take my thread seriously ... http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/gun-legislation/9335-second-dc-vs-heller-case-upcoming.html

I posted this weeks ago.

 

[randmplumbingllc]

Guess people didn't take my thread seriously ... [url]http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/gun-legislation/9335-second-dc-vs-heller-case-upcoming.html[/URL]

I posted this weeks ago.

No respect, I tell ya, No Respect ! LOL

I was wondering what was up wit dat ?

 

[Texas Solo]

Guess people didn't take my thread seriously ... [url]http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/gun-legislation/9335-second-dc-vs-heller-case-upcoming.html[/URL]

I posted this weeks ago.

With all due respect, this is what you posted:

"I was informed that a second possible case is upcoming regarding the 2nd Amendment"

What I posted was the news that the SC HAS DECIDED to hear the case.

 

[APatriot]

My friends,

I for one feel very confident the SC will side with gun rights....relax. Prediction: 5:4 or 6:3 decision.

 

[MadMo44Mag]

My friends,

I for one feel very confident the SC will side with gun rights....relax. Prediction: 5:4 or 6:3 decision.

I have to agree on this one.
With 2010 election right around the corner it will stay pretty much status-quo.
Can't afford to piss folks off if ya want to keep your FINE government health benefits and all that power and cash flowing through your hands!

 

[Texas1911]

The Supreme Court can care less about 2010. They aren't elected by the people, they are elected by politicians to life terms. They will rule on this how they see fit. I don't think it's in the bag either, this can very well be the 4:5 reversal of the previous ruling. They are going on hindsight now, and the mere fact that they took the case is scary.

 

[SiscoKid]

After observing the Supremes for a long time, I can make this assumption about them.

They are PARTISAN, period.

On every case, each one will vote his/her "Party". The reason they are usually chosen because of their vast judicial experience and intelligence is so they can make the partisan decision and then justify it in a long, eloquent diatribe.

You can bet your azz that right off the bat the liberals will all vote anti-gun, the conservatives will vote pro-gun, and then they will spend weeks "justifying" their decisions.

It's why George W. Bush's crowning moment was getting Alito and Roberts on the court.

 

[MadMo44Mag]

The Supreme Court can care less about 2010. They aren't elected by the people, they are elected by politicians to life terms. They will rule on this how they see fit. I don't think it's in the bag either, this can very well be the 4:5 reversal of the previous ruling. They are going on hindsight now, and the mere fact that they took the case is scary.

Our forefathers designed our government with checks and balances but the greed and corruption of men are under lying elements of our government.
There are few patriots in Washington most greedy lawyers looking out for themselves and there friends first and the country second.
With this in mind you have to suspect that the SC will do what is necessary to help keep their friends and fellow lawyers in office.
Most of us think of politics from a patriots stand point. These guys don't. They look at politics as a revenue and power stream.

 

[spence76]

I think the court will vote to incorporate the 2A with this case. The wording of amendments 1-4 is the same, the right of the people or No person. Not sure how they would argue this , although it wouldn't surprise me if they ruled against it. Although I think a few of them realize the potential for a mutiny if 4 million gun owners suddenly find themselves under strict state laws.

 

[GPtwins]

This is not exactly like the Heller case but it is very similar. The DC vs. Heller case ruled on federal law which applies to the district. The Chicago case will rule on whether the second amendment applies to state and local laws as well. As it turns out, it is a good question.

Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution states:

This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

But then the Section 1 of the 14th amendment states:

...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;...