Bestest Presidents

[Ted Striker]

.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
AFAIK, there has been no cases on it. And, secondly, because the SCOTUS hasn't decided between different Circuits' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Just because a law may be unconstitutional (DOMA, PATRIOT Act) doesn't mean it's ruled on by the Courts. There are standing requirements to be met and then it actually has to go through the courts.

So you ADMIT that there are laws out there that clearly violate the Consitution? And that these are allowed to be in violation because of the way they have been interpreted.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Laws where people don't have standing to sue or haven't been able to yet have standing are out there, even though they may violate the Constitution, to me... unless the SCOTUS rules on them they are considered fine (even if they are definetly going to be struck down).

They are allowed to be in violation (IMO), because they haven't been ruled on yet... not because of the way they've been interpreted.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ted Striker

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
AFAIK, there has been no cases on it. And, secondly, because the SCOTUS hasn't decided between different Circuits' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Just because a law may be unconstitutional (DOMA, PATRIOT Act) doesn't mean it's ruled on by the Courts. There are standing requirements to be met and then it actually has to go through the courts.

You have said that the patriot act is unconstitutional because even though it does not infringe on any portion of the constitution it will sometimes reduce the privacy of some people and SCOTUS is on the record as having written invisible privacy protection into the constitution.

But what about this DOMA what is it and what part of the constituion does it conflict with? Does it also only conflict with court legislated invisible unwritten parts of the constituion?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Laws where people don't have standing to sue or haven't been able to yet have standing are out there, even though they may violate the Constitution, to me... unless the SCOTUS rules on them they are considered fine (even if they are definetly going to be struck down).

They are allowed to be in violation (IMO), because they haven't been ruled on yet... not because of the way they've been interpreted.

Yet many courts have interpetated municipal gun bans as being clearly acceptable.

Surely the higher courts in this case would overrule all such measures?

Why don't my Consitutional rights let me take an AK-47 on an airplane?

I want to form an airplane militia in case Osama Bin Laden shows up so we can cap his ass.

Clearly, there is alot of interpretation going on around here. If the Second Amendment really did stricly apply the way you said it did, none of these gun bans would be in effect.

[Imran Siddiqui]

DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) may infringe on equal protection (ie, pretext for homosexual discrimination). But the main provision that will strike it down is the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Oh, and the 'court legislated invisible written parts' is known as Substantive Due Process .

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Geronimo
But what about this DOMA what is it and what part of the constituion does it conflict with?

Full faith and credit.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Yet many courts have interpetated municipal gun bans as being clearly acceptable.

Surely the higher courts in this case would overrule all such measures?

Why don't my Consitutional rights let me take an AK-47 on an airplane?

I want to form an airplane militia in case Osama Bin Laden shows up so we can cap his ass.

Clearly, there is alot of interpretation going on around here. If the Second Amendment really did stricly apply the way you said it did, none of these gun bans would be in effect.

I think it is ok for the private airlines to bar you from carrying such weapons aboard their planes but the federal government would be constitutionally constrained from legislating such a ban.

We really need to repeal the 2nd ammendment rather than just waiting for SCOTUS to re-write it into a more convenient meaning.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Clearly, there is alot of interpretation going on around here. If the Second Amendment really did stricly apply the way you said it did, none of these gun bans would be in effect..

Where did I saw it applied strictly? I said that there can be some limits, because 'arms' is not defined, but the amendment says that private individuals have to have the right to own arms.. so you can't ban all arms. It seems, at the very least, hunting rifles or handguns would have to be allowed. An 'assault weapons' ban could even be read, in the broadest view, to ban those.

Yet many courts have interpetated municipal gun bans as being clearly acceptable.

The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated, which means, as of yet, it does not apply to the states.... just federal government. Which, btw, I think is incorrect .

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I think it is ok for the private airlines to bar you from carrying such weapons aboard their planes but the federal government would be constitutionally constrained from legislating such a ban.

We really need to repeal the 2nd ammendment rather than just waiting for SCOTUS to re-write it into a more convenient meaning.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) may infringe on equal protection (ie, pretext for homosexual discrimination). But the main provision that will strike it down is the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Oh, and the 'court legislated invisible written parts' is known as Substantive Due Process .

Fear of gay marriage seems like a really pathetic excuse for stirring up a constitutional crisis. Is that the only real 'issue' this legislation is meant to address?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Fear of gay marriage seems like a really pathetic excuse for stirring up a constitutional crisis. Is that the only real 'issue' this legislation is meant to address?

Yep. It basically says that if one state accepts gay marriage, no other state has to accept that marriage if they don't want to, say, if that couple moves into the protesting state. It is called the 'Defense of Marriage Act'. It's an anti-gay-marriage law.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I said that there can be some limits, because 'arms' is not defined, but the amendment says that private individuals have to have the right to own arms.. so you can't ban all arms. It seems, at the very least, hunting rifles or handguns would have to be allowed. An 'assault weapons' ban could even be read, in the broadest view, to ban those.

"Would", and "could", are speculation, meaning they are interpretative opinions.

Which goes to my original point, which is that the Second Amendment means different things according to who is reading and interpreting it.

My interpretation say syou should only be allowed to have guns if you are forming a militia, because it was the ONLY explicit purpose ever mentioned in the Second Amendment, which was formed back in the day when there was no real standing army, and colonists were often left to defend themselves.

You, have a different interpretation, sometimes vagueness is okay, sometimes it's not.

If it really was the law of the land all gun bans would never have happened.

But I'm sure lower court judges and city legislatures never took a civic lesson and would not form such foolish laws.

James Brady, who took a bullet to save teh Reagan, surely appreciates such laws.