Montana and the SAF lawsuit

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin T, Oct 3, 2009.

  1. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    195
    Basically, the 10th Amen. means nothing. I haven't researched it, but I do not recall any cases being decided in favor of the 10th Amen., and certainly no important ones have been won using this argument. The Tennessee law will fail for the same reason that the Montana law will fail. I seriously doubt that either of these cases will be taken up by SCOTUS unless an appellate court rules in their favor. That's not likely as this is an area of "settled law."
    I was shocked (but gladdened) that the Court ruled in favor of Heller in Heller v. D.C. Up until this time the 2nd Amen. was never judicially considered to be a right held by an individual. Here, the Court was activist. And rightly so (in my mind at least). Thank the NRA for this as they have managed to change the public perception of the meaning of the 2nd Amen., starting in the early 20th cen. Now, we need to have the 2nd Amen. "incorporated." This means that it will apply to the states. (Originally, none of the Bill of Rights applied to the states. An individual never had a right to free speech, illegal search & seizure, etc. from their state. The Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government.)
    I kinda doubt that the Court will incorporate the 2nd Amen. as the Heller decision was narrowly drawn. Of course, if they don't, the Court will be inconsistent in their logic. Then again, the Heller decision was terribly inconsistent in its logic and selective in its facts. It was also a decision based on concensus; what would a majority sign on to? Even the concurring and dissenting opinions made no sense. I don't hold out hope for incorporation as it would be a wholesale nullification of state gun laws. SCOTUS, as a rule, is hesistant to nullify legislative enactments. To be logically consistent, which the Court never was, would mean that damn near any gun law would violate the Constitution (...shall not be abridged.) Well, limiting me to a 10 rd. magazine or a semi-automatic weapon is an abridgement.
    And then we have the issue of "...and bear arms." Which, if we go back to a 1791 contemporary dictionary we find that "bear" means to "carry." Does anyone seriously believe that the Court is going to say that the 2nd Amen. really means what it says? Not gonna happen. I wish it would, but I'm not under a delusion.
    Now I have made impassionate and logical arguements on why we should allow concealed-carry (I live in Illinois where we have no such thing), but I know better than to use a constitutional reason for why this should be. Fact will shoot this argument down every time, reason won't, but reality always triumphs.
    Sorry to go off on a diatribe and write a treatise. I think I need stronger meds.
  2. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    If weak meds give birth to such a treatise, I think you should just quit the meds cold turkey.

    Pops
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Montana Governor Lies About the Constitution, Vetoes 2nd Amendment Protection Bill Mar 30, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Montana joins in Feb 22, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Montana goes to court. Aug 30, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Montana gun control bill 246? Jul 16, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Montana to secede from the union? May 11, 2009

Share This Page