Comments on: D.C. Guns Press Round-Up http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/dc-guns-press-round-up/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:38:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: John Merritt Burns http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/dc-guns-press-round-up/#comment-13210 John Merritt Burns Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:44:38 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/dc-guns-press-round-up/#comment-13210 I am very glad that Mr. Robert Conrad has found a certain amount of solace within those favorable grants of the Supreme Court. I on the other hand might very well be, just a little skeptical. Be that as it may, I would However like to point out that after the disasters KELO, decision, it could also be said that we have not seen the wholesale taking’s of private property by any given State, though I would consider it to be quite a controversial thing to suggest any further that we have not also seen as this resulting, in some of our States, a progressive continence of disrespectful taking’s, and as it might also be conserved that things have actually gotten better for private property owners in some States as a result, I would also refute this logic by simply congratulating the proprietor of such a statement, as to his successful acquisitions of properties, meaning of course as they must be soundly afforded such considerations from within that very State of his own reference. And as far as I might consider a question on whether or not any State courts are operating under laws contrary to due process, I would rather myself consider this... That Instead of the due process clause being held forth an asylum for those that might be accused, it looks to me that these considerations are now being used as a tool for selecting those of us who are found to be owning properties of their particularized government’s interest. I myself do not propose now to speak for others, but I have found that upon my own circumstances it can well be established that I have expended a heck of a lot more blood sweat and tears, obtaining my home and my land, then I ever did obtaining those very weapons of my own choosing’s, for self defense, and I also do not mean to suggest here that I will define these as useful deterrence’s against any government operated bulldozers. I am very glad that Mr. Robert Conrad has found a certain amount of solace within those favorable grants of the Supreme Court. I on the other hand might very well be, just a little skeptical. Be that as it may, I would However like to point out that after the disasters KELO, decision, it could also be said that we have not seen the wholesale taking’s of private property by any given State, though I would consider it to be quite a controversial thing to suggest any further that we have not also seen as this resulting, in some of our States, a progressive continence of disrespectful taking’s, and as it might also be conserved that things have actually gotten better for private property owners in some States as a result, I would also refute this logic by simply congratulating the proprietor of such a statement, as to his successful acquisitions of properties, meaning of course as they must be soundly afforded such considerations from within that very State of his own reference. And as far as I might consider a question on whether or not any State courts are operating under laws contrary to due process, I would rather myself consider this… That Instead of the due process clause being held forth an asylum for those that might be accused, it looks to me that these considerations are now being used as a tool for selecting those of us who are found to be owning properties of their particularized government’s interest. I myself do not propose now to speak for others, but I have found that upon my own circumstances it can well be established that I have expended a heck of a lot more blood sweat and tears, obtaining my home and my land, then I ever did obtaining those very weapons of my own choosing’s, for self defense, and I also do not mean to suggest here that I will define these as useful deterrence’s against any government operated bulldozers.

]]> By: Robert Conrad http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/dc-guns-press-round-up/#comment-13133 Robert Conrad Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:56:57 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/dc-guns-press-round-up/#comment-13133 In the technical sense, Mr. Burns might be right. But States would be hard pressed to remain enacted any State or municple law that fails the "strict scrutiny" test afforded to individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. In their grant, the Supreme Court already referred to the right of the people to keep and bear arms as an individual right - they're only taking up the question of whether or not the District's gun ban violates it. The restrictive militia or collective theories of the right of the people did not survive even the petition process. A pro-rights rulling will undoubtedly gut Federal gun control law. So that leaves us to consider Mr. Burns' statement, in which we must accept any right of the people to be completely subject to State or municiple law. We can test this idea by asking ourselves a few simple questions: Do we have States banning wholesale free speech? Are there any State courts operating under laws contrary to due process? Individual rights obvioulsy transend State law and are only subject to "reasonable restriction." I do agree with Mr. Burns to some degree. The decision will have no effect on any State having restrictions less-than those at the Federal level. New York, Illinois, and Hawaii should expect their laws to come under attack in 2008. In the technical sense, Mr. Burns might be right. But States would be hard pressed to remain enacted any State or municple law that fails the “strict scrutiny” test afforded to individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. In their grant, the Supreme Court already referred to the right of the people to keep and bear arms as an individual right – they’re only taking up the question of whether or not the District’s gun ban violates it. The restrictive militia or collective theories of the right of the people did not survive even the petition process. A pro-rights rulling will undoubtedly gut Federal gun control law.

So that leaves us to consider Mr. Burns’ statement, in which we must accept any right of the people to be completely subject to State or municiple law. We can test this idea by asking ourselves a few simple questions: Do we have States banning wholesale free speech? Are there any State courts operating under laws contrary to due process? Individual rights obvioulsy transend State law and are only subject to “reasonable restriction.”

I do agree with Mr. Burns to some degree. The decision will have no effect on any State having restrictions less-than those at the Federal level. New York, Illinois, and Hawaii should expect their laws to come under attack in 2008.

]]> By: John Merritt Burns http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/dc-guns-press-round-up/#comment-13126 John Merritt Burns Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:23:02 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/dc-guns-press-round-up/#comment-13126 “In the Fourteenth Amendment the provision regarding the taking of private property is omitted, and the prohibition against the state is confined to its depriving any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” “What individual Senators or Representatives may have urged in debate, in regard to the meaning to be given to a proposed constitutional amendment, or bill, or resolution, does not furnish a firm ground for its proper construction, nor is it important” In Presser v. Illinois - “it was held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution, in regard to the right of the people to bear arms, is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government” This was quoted in KELO, "We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive... . The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. In the present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them. If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation's Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way." Note... The Supreme court has already determined that the District of Columbia is governed by the Federal Congresses and their authorized agencies. This is why the Supreme court will feel unrestrained to announce in the strongest of terms that the Federal Constitution either, restrains, or condones their authority in this manner. This decision will not effect the States, whatsoever. “In the Fourteenth Amendment the provision regarding the taking of private property is omitted, and the prohibition against the state is confined to its depriving any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”

“What individual Senators or Representatives may have urged in debate, in regard to the meaning to be given to a proposed constitutional amendment, or bill, or resolution, does not furnish a firm ground for its proper construction, nor is it important”

In Presser v. Illinois – “it was held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution, in regard to the right of the people to bear arms, is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government”

This was quoted in KELO,
“We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive… . The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. In the present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them. If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation’s Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.”

Note… The Supreme court has already determined that the District of Columbia is governed by the Federal Congresses and their authorized agencies. This is why the Supreme court will feel unrestrained to announce in the strongest of terms that the Federal Constitution either, restrains, or condones their authority in this manner. This decision will not effect the States, whatsoever.

]]>