Jeff Sessions, Sotomayor and gun rights in cities

Jeff Sessions is upset because people in cities may be able to pass gun control laws.

Remember when this debate was about states rights? Apparently the gun nuts have decided that they get to dictate the law everywhere including cities far away from gun territory.

This is an act of agression on their part but I'n not surprised. They have been shoving their guns in our faces since the election. I'm against gun control but since they are insisting on sticking guns up my nose it's time to fight back.




Thursday, June 25, 2009

By SEAN REILLY

Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Sen. Jeff Sessions took aim Wednesday at U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's position on gun ownership rights, warning at a news conference that one recent ruling would "eviscerate" constitutional protections in much of the country if it were to become law.

"This is a very significant case," the Mobile Republican told reporters at the U.S. Capitol.

A lawyer for one prominent gun control group said afterward that Sotomayor, currently a federal appellate judge in New York, was simply following an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court decision that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, enshrined in the Second Amendment, does not apply to restrictions imposed by states and local governments.

http://www.al.com/news/press-register/metro.ssf?/base/news/1245921354271580.xml&coll=3

that prohibit "gun control". Pennsylvania does, as the Philly mayor found out when he enacted illegal gun control legislation that was just declared illegal by the court.


mark

because guns are the religion and drug of choice of gun nuts everywhere, since it's ALL they seem to focus on here.

and the Constitution of the USA prevailing over those who violate the law for cheap publicity, as did the mayor of Philadelphia and the Governor of PA.

FYI, the Philadelphia District Attorney told the Mayor before he decided to back those laws that she WOULD NOT ENFORCE THEM if they were passed because they were illegal.

mark

D.C. and Chicago would be paradise on earth. Instead it seems like many of the safest large cities are the ones with the least gun controls, like Minneapolis and Seattle.

We have no idea what it would be like if there were no handguns in DC, because guns are a short drive away and the laws are simply not enforceable. There's really nothing strict about that.

There are 300 million civilian-owned firearms in the US right now. If the country banned all guns tomorrow, a huge black market would spring up with just as much attendant violence as the illegal drug market, if not more, and it would take at least a century for guns to become scarce. Of course, any gun restrictions that could get passed in the US will fall far short of total prohibition. The horse left the barn a long time ago, and he's never going back in. The only solution to inner-city violence is to legalize drugs and all the other victimless crimes that gangs go to war over, and alleviate the poverty that leads people to choose that way of life.

That was decided last summer. The second amendment clearly protects ownership of handguns "in common use"


The question is now whether the second amendment is incorporated against the states, that is, whether or not the second amendment trumps state law.

For that you need to look at the 14th amendment.


In 1886 the Supreme Court said that the 1st and 2nd amendments do not trump state law. Since then, the Supreme Court has reversed itself on the 1st amendment, and has not addressed the 2nd amendment.

Within the past 6 months, The 7th circuit (CA) has said that in light of newer Supreme Court decisions the 1886 must be overturned, and that the second amendment should trump state law, While the 5th (Chicago) and 2nd (NY) circuit courts said they lack the authority to overturn the 1886 SC decision.

So right now, Federal Law in CA is different from Federal law in Chicago and NY. It is of course the job of the Supreme court to unify federal law for the whole country.

the SCOTUS must rule on incorporation of the 2nd Amendment into the 14th...one way or the other. "A lawyer for one prominent gun control group", read VPC or Brady, two of the most demonstrably dishonest lobbying groups in the country, have been proven wrong time after time while looking into their crystal balls. SCOTUS will incorporate leaving cities and states able to impose some restrictions, but not effectively outlaw firearms "in common use for lawful purposes", IMHO.