View Single Post
Old April 16, 2013, 04:54 AM   #76
Charles Mosteller
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2013
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Heller as the wonderful solution:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/us...case.html?_r=0

Also, my past optimistic view was evidence based at the time. That is a simple point. I wish I was wrong.
Well, what is it that you thought that the Heller case might be a wonderful solution for? School carry? It wasn't at issue in the case, so common sense dictates that the Court wasn't going to rule on it. Courts tend to rule narrowly, and particularly when constitutional issues are under consideration.

As far as this "evidence" that you refer to, how many right to keep and bear arms cases has the United States Supreme Court handed down opinions on, in the time since the Heller case was decided several years ago?

I know that there was the McDonald case, where the Court then utilized incorporated the right recognized in Heller. Again, school carry wasn't at issue, so it wasn't going to be resolved in a case where it's not even at issue.

My view on the Heller case is not that it is a wonderful solution to all attempts at gun control, but rather, that it was a positive development.

Since one legislature cannot bind the hands of a future legislature, future attempts to impose gun control will continue to be possible, no matter what the judiciary rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
I currently see that I was perhaps incorrect. I thought that Obama would talk the ban talk but do nothing for political reasons. But I was wrong. He went full press on the issue. I thought that progun Democrats and most progun Republicans would hold the line (Toomey, Manchin - hey, being touted for President!). We will see about the House. Also, my optimism was based on the history of desegregation. In that case, the Federal government took Brown as a case to move against states. That certainly isn't the case here.

If you understand that analyses change based on evidence, you might move beyond rhetoric.
Oh, I am quite capable of comprehending that analysis can change over time, based upon evidence. However, how one chooses to present evidence, and what one chooses to characterize as evidence, can impact the process of analysis, itself.

Additionally, I am quite capable of moving beyond rhetoric, can certainly where what is at issue is my ability and/or willingness to analyze an issue. That said, the fact that I am able to move beyond rhetoric does not mean that I am compelled to agree with your conclusions. From my perspective, I believe that allowing one's own pessimism to color their analysis can lead to error in what is concluded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
I'm not seeing Heller or Mc as a magic wand.
I don't see it as a magic wand, either. On that, at least, we are in agreement, though perhaps for different reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
I'd bet that the only thing it will protect is the right to have a double barrel - with appropriate registration - when the dust settles. Rights to handguns and EBRs will be iffy.
I don't agree, but certainly, you're entitled to your opinion. Heller already protects more than a right to have a double-barreled shotgun, and McDonald already incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
State laws like the SAFE act will limit access to those and will the SCOTUS overturn. Place you bets on the wiley old bird. Note the NYTimes article does discuss the holes I pointed out as legitimizing such laws.
Lots of newspaper articles discuss lots of things. I take what I read in newspapers with a grain of salt, on any issue. On the finer points of constitutional interpretation by the United States Supreme Court, the New York Times is not where I, personally, would turn for guidance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
See what happens for other cases - Posner's decision? That will tell the tale rather than old wily bird praise.
Posner's recent opinion in Moore v. Madigan is yet another positive development. Is it a wonderful solution, in and of itself? No, although it did make many feel wonderful, after they read it (but not everyone, of course). Welcome to terra incognita!

Much of what you want to see explored remains unexplored territory for the United States Supreme Court. These things take time.

Even things that the Heller case did not call into question, could still be called into question.

If a right is not absolute, then it can be regulated. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right that is absolute in nature, and consequently, it can be regulated. The devil, as always, is in the details.

That said, if you believe that the right to carry in the school environment, whether on a college campus or some other school environment, then by all means, advocate on behalf of such. Do you have a list handy compiled of your core arguing points in support of school carry that I could read?

Last edited by Charles Mosteller; April 16, 2013 at 04:59 AM. Reason: To correct a typo.
Charles Mosteller is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05337 seconds with 7 queries