Is This the Supreme Court's Next Big Second Amendment Case?

[GIJEW]

I'm not sure I agree with you on point #2. Do minors have a right to defend themselves, if attacked? If so, then to say they have no RKBA is fallacious. They are disallowed the exercise of that right under US law, yes, but the right still exists. There has been no due process of law to remove their lawful access to that right, either. The insane and the criminals, however, you are correct. The problem at least with the criminal, is that once he has "paid his debt to society", he must still continue to "pay" in some peoples' minds, by the continued restriction again based on the paradigm that if it is law, it must be right. At some point, he should be "made whole" again.

Blessings,
Bill

good point about restoring the rights of criminals. My impression is that while the process exists, it's based on the judge's opinion and very subjective. Maybe there should be a "shall restore..." process, depending on the nature of the crime?

About minors, there certainly was a time--in living memory--when it was no big deal for a "pre-teen" to go hunting by himself, and it seems to be a rare prosecutor who would make an issue of a minor using a firearm in home defense. However, parents are responsible for the actions of their children and if they choose to prohibit them from doing something, it's not as if the children can sue them for violating their rights. I'm concluding from that, that the RKBA is only a priviledge for children which the parents grant based on their judgement about their child.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It's still a right, but yes, the parents are responsible for their child's actions. I was only saying it's not (or should not be) a governmental issue nor should there be governmental oversight of that act/action. It's on a par with the child being allowed to cross a street, to cook a dish or a meal, etc. No law exists forbidding nor requiring me to allow my child to go into the kitchen, turn on the stove, and cook an omelette. Hell, I was doing that myself as early as 8 or 9. A little older, and I could go in and do it alone. It certainly behooves both the child and the parent to ensure that the child knows what s/he is doing, isn't going to lop off a finger with a big knife or stick his/her hand in the running blender, etc., but again, no laws are broken. In Indiana, we have a law that requires a LTCH and thus, that one be at least 18, to carry a handgun on or about one's person in public. I'm not, of course, advocating for DeSantis or even Uncle Mike's to develop a line of holsters with Sponge Bob or whatever on them, nor for Ruger or whoever to create smaller pistols with shorter trigger pulls and reduced trigger weights to allow the average 5 year old to manipulate them easily. What I'm saying is that the decision to allow the child to exercise a right should be made by those who know the child best: his/her parents, and no one else. And if the child fails to act responsibly, then those parents are the ones called as defendants before the jury and judge.

Blessings,
Bill

good point about restoring the rights of criminals. My impression is that while the process exists, it's based on the judge's opinion and very subjective. Maybe there should be a "shall restore..." process, depending on the nature of the crime?

About minors, there certainly was a time--in living memory--when it was no big deal for a "pre-teen" to go hunting by himself, and it seems to be a rare prosecutor who would make an issue of a minor using a firearm in home defense. However, parents are responsible for the actions of their children and if they choose to prohibit them from doing something, it's not as if the children can sue them for violating their rights. I'm concluding from that, that the RKBA is only a priviledge for children which the parents grant based on their judgement about their child.

 

[Libertarian01]

The freedom on speech is freedom AGAINST the .GOV shutting you up. Meaning you do not need a permit to be on your bullhorn saying down with the .gov.

You can do that whenever you want, anywhere you want.
What gets you in issues is making noise at 2am in your hood when everyone else is sleeping. Then its not that your freedom of speech is being supresed its that you are making noise whenever all else do not want noise.

Yes, but if the only noise I am making at the "wrong" place and time is speech, then my 1A is being trampled on.

I don't think that is a good example. Disallowing the use of a bullhorn does not deny one the ability to exercise the right of free speech. After all, one can still speak at the chosen place and time. And, under the principle of prior restraint, even unlawful uses of the exercise of free speech rights cannot be preemptively prohibited. The exercise of free speech rights must take place first, in order then to be acted upon.

You're just quibbling over the decibel level. Presume my voice could be as loud as a bullhorn, we'd be back to square #1.

-----

Or perhaps I want to sacrifice a goat in a public park on Sunday for my religious freedom. Tell me there won't be issues.

The point is that while we all have rights, we live too close to one another. That causes by the very nature of distance conflicts between your rights, my rights, and our neighbors rights. Ergo, no one can exercise all of their rights all of the time without infringing upon someone else. That is my only point, that our rights cannot be fully exercised due to the inevitable conflict with others.

I support protecting all of our natural rights as much as possible, yet to do that the irony is that the .gov must suppress all of the rights a little to protect all of the rights a lot. Where and how much will be argued about until the end of time.

Regards,

Doug

 

[chipbennett]

The point is that while we all have rights, we live too close to one another. That causes by the very nature of distance conflicts between your rights, my rights, and our neighbors rights. Ergo, no one can exercise all of their rights all of the time without infringing upon someone else. That is my only point, that our rights cannot be fully exercised due to the inevitable conflict with others.

I agree with you, as did our founding fathers, who wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

The prime directive of government is to secure the free exercise of individual liberty - i.e. to ensure that one's exercise of rights does not infringe upon the rights of another.

Rights are absolute - up until the point at which the exercise of rights causes harm to and/or infringes upon the rights of another.

 

[GIJEW]

This has turned into a good thread!

 

[dozer13]

It really has lol

On a side note the case has been redistributed for conference on the 11th didn't get rescheduled last week which is odd...

 

[Phase2]

Looks like Peruta has taken a step forward:

GUN WATCH: Peruta Likely to be Heard by the Supreme Court

 

[Alamo]

And more fanfare:

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court | Fox News

 

[Steel and wood]

This thread is very interesting nice job guys will have to keep a eye out for it

 

[dozer13]

Up for conference again 05/18/17.

 

[dozer13]

May 22 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017....

 

[ArcadiaGP]

SCOTUS takes no action on Peruta v. California

 

[AmmoManAaron]

SCOTUS takes no action on Peruta v. California

That is extremely disappointing.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

SCOTUS will not hear Peruta, on the right to bear arms outside the home. Thomas and Gorsuch dissent from the denial of cert.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

2nd Am carry case from Cal. J. Thomas in dissent, joined by Gorsuch, called CA9 en banc "indefensible"

 

[T.Lex]

2nd Am carry case from Cal. J. Thomas in dissent, joined by Gorsuch, called CA9 en banc "indefensible"

First post in this thread.

That snippet is insight into why cert was granted: the overall SCOTUS doesn't think this is a big enough issue. Sometimes, they wait to determine how "big" a problem is - how many times it comes up in different parts of the country and in what contexts - before dedicating their resources to solving it. A variation of this is that, even if they get enough requests to fix a problem for it to be "big enough," they wait for a certain procedural posture before dealing with it.

The cert-dissenters are basically inviting more litigation on this, to produce more appeals, to provide the necessary weight for the court to review it.

I can think of a certain Indiana zoo-case that could fit some of the criteria they're looking for.

 

[miguel]

That snippet is insight into why cert was granted: the overall SCOTUS doesn't think this is a big enough issue.

Geez Louise, I would think a case involving a state with 15% of the nation's population would catch their attention!

Lawyers...can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

p.s. Except for T.Lex and Kirk, of course.

 

[chipbennett]

If the 9 black-robed tyrants can't get the decision right upon hearing this time around, then they are unfit for duty. **** you, SCOTUS, you bunch of chicken****s (except for Thomas and Gorsuch).

 

[KLB]

Looks like Gorsuch is a big win for those that voted for Trump with the hope of getting a justice with pro 2A leanings.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Looks like Gorsuch is a big win for those that voted for Trump with the hope of getting a justice with pro 2A leanings.

Yup. Very happy with that.