The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 26, 2013, 09:46 AM   #1
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,403
Because this case can affect that case, and be cited in a third case, DOMA Decision

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Supreme Court of the United States in
Its operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New
York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect.
So when the States pass a law that protects firearms rights- Say those nullification laws?- Can they now point to the Justice Kennedy here?

The Decision is here That's all sorts of 5A and 10A goodness I see so far.
JimDandy is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 10:20 AM   #2
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,578
Perhaps I'm over-simplifying the whole thing but I find it interesting that we have, in very short order, two SCOTUS decisions:

1)Arizona Immigration law, that basically says that the state authority may not interfere in matters that are under Federal control.

2)DOMA, which basically says that the Federal authority may not interfere with matters that are under state control.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the myriad effects that this could have on gun rights.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 10:37 AM   #3
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,403
Well it's going to come down to who has firearms control. Or which aspect of it. We're seeing a pretty good court I think... that's walking that fine line of the division of governing labor. What is the Feds is the Feds, what is the State's is the State's. Meaning the Fed's may control interstate trade on them, but not who can own what where.
JimDandy is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 11:06 AM   #4
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
And not one but three separate dissents to plow through. Uggh.
csmsss is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 11:09 AM   #5
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
One thing is clear, while we're discussing DOMA - it is not long before a full faith and credit suit works its way up the chain and the likely result is that states will be required to recognize each others' marriages, period.
csmsss is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 11:11 AM   #6
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,631
Quote:
And not one but three separate dissents to plow through. Uggh.
The parts I've read are cogent and entertaining.
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 11:16 AM   #7
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
The parts I've read are cogent and entertaining.
I hadn't read any of them when I first posted - but Scalia's is classic Scalia. I almost hate to see him on the winning side of a case because his dissents are so much more fun to read.
csmsss is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 12:13 PM   #8
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,225
Quote:
Meaning the Fed's may control interstate trade on them, but not who can own what where.
That's well and good, except for the fact that nearly any good could be construed to affect interstate commerce by our current interpretation (see Gonzales v. Raich and Wickard).

Scalia's dissent opens with this:

Quote:
And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.
He focuses quite a bit on whether or not the Court itself has exaggerated the authority implied by Marbury.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 12:26 PM   #9
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
He focuses quite a bit on whether or not the Court itself has exaggerated the authority implied by Marbury.
And he does it well, too. I cannot guarantee that I agree with everything Scalia writes, but I nearly always enjoy his clarity.

Particularly persuasive is his explanation that since the litigants are in full agreement, there is no case or controversy to decide. In the long run, no matter the result of an individual case, I find result oriented jurisprudence to be a disease that ultimately cripples the real authority of courts.
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 04:28 PM   #10
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,475
Quote:
...I find it interesting that we have, in very short order, two SCOTUS decisions:

1)Arizona Immigration law, that basically says that the state authority may not interfere in matters that are under Federal control.

2)DOMA, which basically says that the Federal authority may not interfere with matters that are under state control.
I find the logic consistent between the two cases: a state cannot impose broad and burdensome restrictions on conduct that is widely allowable and unrestricted elsewhere.
Quote:
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the myriad effects that this could have on gun rights.
So am I, but if one follows the logic outlined above, the precedent in both cases could be very good for gun rights- specifically, for the move towards a consistent national CCW standard.

I don't think a federal CCW law has a chance anymore, because the recent partisan rancor and divisiveness over proposed gun control has poisoned the proverbial well. I think the issue will be decided in the courts rather than by federal statute. The more cases that uphold a uniform standard, the better.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 05:48 PM   #11
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,578
The thing is, immigration is traditionally a federal issue and marriage is traditionally a state issue but firearms have no such tradition on either side. Now, I could (and do) make the argument that virtually all federal level gun laws are unconstitutional so it SHOULD be a state level issue but that's simply not the legal/political reality. I'm not really sure what the real world application of these decisions would be, concerning gun rights.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 26, 2013, 06:50 PM   #12
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Yeah Brian, its a really rocky issue. People from my home state (Texas) want gun rights to be strictly by the state, whereas people in my current state (California) are salivating at the mouth for a supreme court case to overthrow their bogus laws.

While I selfishly want the ladder because of my career choice, Im on the fence morally and politically.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old June 27, 2013, 11:33 AM   #13
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
There are also those who want a law that requires all states to recognize all other states CW licenses.
That is a very slippery slope. Do you want the states to have the rights or the Feds?

If the feds can dictate that states must do something they also have the authority to dictate the reverse.

Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 *¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 *For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old June 28, 2013, 12:54 PM   #14
ThesNazud
Member
 
Join Date: June 3, 2013
Location: Marshall, IL
Posts: 55
I'm for national reciprocity, as I think it could be handled similar to how Driver's Licenses, and other licensing is concerned. Sure other states may have different rules and such, but they are honored from state to state. Simple question with a not so simple answer then is, 'If it has been done with those, why not with carry permits?'
ThesNazud is offline  
Old June 28, 2013, 01:45 PM   #15
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,876
Quote:
I'm for national reciprocity, as I think it could be handled similar to how Driver's Licenses, and other licensing is concerned. Sure other states may have different rules and such, but they are honored from state to state. Simple question with a not so simple answer then is, 'If it has been done with those, why not with carry permits?
There are, as I see it, a few problems with comparing Federally-mandated national CCW reciprocity with driver's licenses. First and foremost, reciprocity of driver's licenses was reached through agreements between the states. Allowing the feds to mandate CCW licenses would be letting the camel's nose into the tent and I fear that fed interference with specific state CCW regulations would follow.

Secondly, while there are some minor variations, the basic traffic laws, driver's license requirements, and rules of the road in all states are fairly uniform. Someone familiar with the traffic laws of one state can drive in any other state with a fairly low risk of violating traffic laws unintentionally. Likewise, just about every new car being sold is legal to drive in every state. CCW regulations, on the other hand, vary widely. There are wide variations from state-to-state regarding requirements for obtaining a license, what type of gun may be carried, what type of ammunition may be carried, what type of magazine may be carried, the manner in which the gun may be carried, when/where carry is legal, and how one must interact with a police officer when carrying. Someone from a state like Indiana, which has very loose CCW regulations, could easily break the law without even knowing that they're doing so by carrying a gun with a so-called "high capacity magazine", carrying hollowpoints, carrying openly, carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol, or failing to inform a police officer that they're carrying because, while all of these things are perfectly legal in Indiana, there are other states where they are not.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09134 seconds with 7 queries