Settled law and stare decisis

Text Drivers are Killers said:
All laws written by the SC are unconstitutional since the constitution itself says only congress can write laws. It is thus absurd to say roe v wade is settled law.
Click to expand...

This is a good example of the ignorance of the right wing. SCOTUS does not write laws. They interpret laws according to the Constitution. Of course, KillerText does not understand the difference between "interpret", and "Write", anymore then TiffyDon understands the concept of "settled".
 
SmarterthanYou said:
now what idiot case are you referring to for this one?

especially given the dozens of court cases that affirm the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Again "smarterthanyou" proves that his nick is only a dream:

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-l...preme-court-the-second-amendment/dc-v-heller/


The Heller Decision and What It Means

What was at issue in District of Columbia v. Heller?

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court heard Second Amendment challenges to Washington DC’s decades-old ban on handgun possession and requirement that firearms in the home be stored unloaded and disassembled or bound by a locking device. In considering the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time in 70 years, the Court examined whether the Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, or only protects firearm possession connected to service in a state militia. In a radical departure from its previous interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court held that the Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense, and struck down the handgun possession ban as well as the safe storage law (which had no exception for self-defense).

The Supreme Court stated, however, that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:

Prohibit firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill;
Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; and
Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

The Court noted that this list is not exhaustive, and concluded that the Second Amendment is also consistent with laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use at the time, such as M-16 rifles and other firearms that are most useful in military service. In addition, the Court declared that its analysis should not be read to suggest “the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.”


"Why is Heller such a radical departure from prior Second Amendment case law?

As discussed in Giffords Law Center’s brochure Gun Regulation and the Second Amendment: Moving Forward After District of Columbia v. Heller, the ruling in Heller represented a dramatic reversal of the Court’s previous interpretation of the Second Amendment. In United States v. Miller, the Court stated, in a unanimous decision, that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” In reliance on Miller, hundreds of lower federal and state appellate courts had rejected Second Amendment challenges to our nation’s gun laws over the last seven decades, making Heller‘s reversal of this interpretation a watershed moment in Second Amendment law."
 
and just to be clear to most of you morons. You cannot declare that the US Supreme Court is the final arbiter or the constitution and then get upset because they decided in a way that you disapprove of.
 
SCOTUS says whatever the 2dA means, not a bunch of yahoos right or left.

Heller reserves the right to SCOTUS to have the final say.

I wonder what it will say when the next 'weapons of war' case gets to the Supreme Court for review.
 
jimmymccready said:
SCOTUS says whatever the 2dA means, not a bunch of yahoos right or left.

Heller reserves the right to SCOTUS to have the final say.

I wonder what it will say when the next 'weapons of war' case gets to the Supreme Court for review.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly not what the 2nd actually says, or what the Founders claimed that it means.
 
Also smarterthanyou should read Judge Batchelder's findings in Tyler vs. Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department. She believes that the majority ruling does nothing more than a passing nod to Scalia's use of an originalist text to interpret law.
 
jimmymccready said:
Also smarterthanyou should read Judge Batchelder's findings in Tyler vs. Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department. She believes that the majority ruling does nothing more than a passing nod to Scalia's use of an originalist text to interpret law.
Click to expand...

there have been numerous federal and state cases that clearly state that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, so i'm still waiting to see this case that says otherwise and is settled law from 150 years ago.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and just to be clear to most of you morons. You cannot declare that the US Supreme Court is the final arbiter or the constitution and then get upset because they decided in a way that you disapprove of.
Click to expand...

How would a fool like you know since you have never read the Heller decision?

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html

For instance, Heller says you don't have the right to carry any weapon you want any place you want:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Heller says the only weapons protected were those in common use at the time of the ratification of the Second:

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Heller says that it is the Militia (of which we have none anymore) that have the right to own military styled weapons:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

And Heller said that the States have the right to restrict weapons within their borders:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-allows-new-york-connecticut-assault-weapons-ban/

Now I know a moron like you does not agree with these decisions by SCOTUS, however, to a fucking idiot like you reality would not matter,
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
there have been numerous federal and state cases that clearly state that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, so i'm still waiting to see this case that says otherwise and is settled law from 150 years ago.
Click to expand...

Now, once again to the fucking idiot class, Heller is the "law of the land" until another case comes along. However, I would like to see some of the cases you are referring to since I am confident you haven't read them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top