Korean Job Discussion Forums

[.38 Special]

As the title says, on March 2 the Supreme Court of the United States of America heard the case of McDonald v. The City of Chicago.

Here is the transcript of the hearing:
http://supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

The gist of the jazz is that the Supreme Court had ruled in 2008 in Heller v. The District of Columbia (wiki reference for your convenience here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the individual right to "keep and bear arms" in "Federal enclaves" (pretty much just D.C. for all practical purposes).

Otis McDonald is among the petitioners, as supported by The National Rifle Association (of course), who are challenging whether the Second Amendment is merely a Federal immunity for American citizens residing within a Federal enclave, of if it applies to all citizens in much the same way the First Amendment does.

I'm no legal scholar, but these are the basics: Some Amendments are "incorporated" -- that is, the Supreme Court determined them to be sufficiently necessary for Constitutional government that the individual states and local governments were forced to respect those rights (wiki reference for your convenience here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights). Not all of the Amendments, nor the full details of each, have been incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment.

One notable exception through the years has been the Second Amendment, one which was (in my opinion, villainously) barred from incorporation by the Cruikshank case (wiki reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank). Cruikshank also forbid the First and Fifteenth Amendment (the right of all citizens to vote) from being enforced upon the states. The bulk of Cruikshank has been overturned over the years.

Basically, McDonald and his fellow petitioners argue that the Second Amendment ought to be incorporated among the states. This would invalidate all whole bans against the possession of common arms throughout the country. It is uncertain that Cruikshank will be wholly overturned, or if the Slaughterhouse Rules will be overturned. The extent of the gun control overturned is also uncertain, however the effect of the Heller decision gives us a pretty good idea (sans Congress intervention in D.C. in 2008/2009).

The poll is set to run for 2 weeks. I doubt that it will take that long for the court to find a ruling (in my opinion, the hearing was a cut and dry victory for McDonald, and the massive amicus curiae from Congress probably didn't hurt either).

[djsmnc]

I like Big Macs

[RufusW]

Seems like it might be an interesting decision.

I have no idea which way it'll go, but I'd like certain states to be able to outlaw handguns, then at least there'd be an experiment going on to see whether it was a good thing. (Although America could look at Europe any time they wanted)

[Fox]

[RufusW]

Yes Federal law should overrule states and you're obviously arguing handguns are allowed under the constitution. I would oppose this by asking whether it's a well-regulated militia, or in fact, whether the constitution isn't simply outdated. But I'm not a constitutional scholar.

[The Happy Warrior]

[Kimbop]

I like guns. I'm responsible. Illegal gun possessers should be jailed. I don't like repeat offenders--- I like DEAD offenders.

[.38 Special]

[caniff]

[.38 Special]

[pkang0202]

"Assault Weapons"

Biggest fallacy ever.

I buy a rifle. I make 3 cosmetic changes that don't in any way affect the performance of the gun, and its considered an assault weapon and BANNED.

That's like buying a car, tinting the windows, adding a neon light, and hanging some dice on the rear view mirror. Suddenly you are committing a felony.

[Fox]

[Kepler]

From the Brady Campaign website about assault weapons:

[Kepler]

[kiknkorea]