Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

dudeone

Michigan passes bill allowing concealed weapons in schools, day care centers, stadiums, churches

522 posts in this topic

That would be a first - SCOTUS reversing a major constitutional decision in less than 50 years. You know that old saying... the chances f that happening are slim and none and slim has long since left the building.

Heller was the first major reconsideration of the Second Amendment since the 1939 Miller case - United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Per Miller :

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense... The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'

Per Heller - the handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violated the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional:

"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 extended the Heller reasoning to the state and municipal level and conformed the unconstituionality of a general handgun ban and the firearm safe storage regulations.

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.

I do not see a lot of wiggle room in light of the Heller and McDonald cases.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't share your sense regarding little "wiggle room" when it comes to how polarised SCOTUS is (how increasingly polarised the high courts have become in general), how consistently they vote with those alike in political ideology in major cases like this, and of course as shown during the Bush appointee hearings, how much less judges would rigidly employ stare decisis in their rulings, and of course that odds are in favour of one or two SCOTUS judges being replaced during Obama's second term.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it just fine, I don't agree.. while you have a point with historical occurrences of reversal, you have none when it comes to the ambiguity of decision making, especially if Obama winds up replacing, say, Thomas, Scalia, or Kennedy. No doubt the impact there along with the eroding respect for stare decisis, and polarisation of the court, will mean radical changes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it just fine, I don't agree.. while you have a point with historical occurrences of reversal, you have none when it comes to the ambiguity of decision making, especially if Obama winds up replacing, say, Thomas, Scalia, or Kennedy. No doubt the impact there along with the eroding respect for stare decisis, and polarisation of the court, will mean radical changes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas lawmaker: ‘Ping-pongs’ deadlier than guns

By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 5 hrs ago

http://news.yahoo.co...--politics.html

Incoming Texas State Rep. Kyle Kacal says guns don’t kill people—ping-pong kills people.

"I've heard of people being killed playing ping-pong—ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns," he says. "Flat-screen TVs are injuring more kids today than anything."

The Consumer Product Safety Commission does warn that some sports equipment may have unexpected hazards—for instance, brands of tennis rackets have been recalled because ofpossible exposure to lead.

Also in the category of Things That Are Dangerous But Are Not Ping-pong: One model helicopter had to come off the shelves because of—yikes—“laceration hazards.”

But neither table tennis racquets nor table tennis itself appears to have hurt any children. For instance, it's nowhere to be found in a commission analysis noting the 13 toy-related deaths and 262,300 toy-related injuries to children under 15 in 2011. (If you have time to waste, the commission's lists of recalled sports equipment and toys make for engrossing—and sometimes distressing—reading.)

The lifetime rancher, who will take his seat in 2013 as a freshman, says that new gun restrictions are unnecessary. Kacal, who reportedly operates a hunting business, notably came out against a bill instructing Texans how to secure their assault weapons.

"People know what they need to do to be safe. We don't need to legislate that—it's common sense," he said. "Once everyone's gun is locked up, then the bad guys know everyone's gun is locked up."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in more news from Texas...

HARROLD, Texas — In this tiny Texas town, children and their parents don't give much thought to safety at the community's lone school — mostly because some of the teachers are carrying concealed weapons.

In remote Harrold, the nearest sheriff's office is 30 minutes away, and people tend to know — and trust — one another. So the school board voted to let teachers bring guns to school.

"We don't have money for a security guard, but this is a better solution," Superintendent David Thweatt said. "A shooter could take out a guard or officer with a visible, holstered weapon, but our teachers have master's degrees, are older and have had extensive training. And their guns are hidden. We can protect our children."

In the awful aftermath of last week's Connecticut elementary school shooting, lawmakers in a growing number of states — including Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, South Dakota and Oregon — have said they will consider laws allowing teachers and school administrators to carry firearms at school.

Texas law bans guns in schools unless the school has given written authorization. Arizona and six other states have similar laws with exceptions for people who have licenses to carry concealed weapons.

Harrold's school board voted unanimously in 2007 to allow employees to carry weapons. After obtaining a state concealed-weapons permit, each employee who wants to carry a weapon must be approved by the board based on his or her personality and reaction to a crisis, Thweatt said.

Employees also must undergo training in crisis intervention and hostage situations. And they must use bullets that minimize the risk of ricochet, similar to those carried by air marshals on planes.

CaRae Reinisch, who lives in the nearby community of Elliott, said she took her children out of a larger school and enrolled them in Harrold two years ago, partly because she felt they would be safer in a building with armed teachers.

"I think it's a great idea for trained teachers to carry weapons," Reinish said. "But I hate that it has come to this."

The superintendent won't disclose how many of the school's 50 employees carry weapons, saying that revealing that number might jeopardize school security.

The school, about 150 miles (240 kilometres) northwest of Fort Worth near the Oklahoma border, has 103 students from kindergarten through 12th grade. Most of them rarely think about who is carrying a gun.

"This is the first time in a long time that I've thought about it," said Matt Templeton, the principal's 17-year-old son. "And that's because of what happened" in Connecticut.

Thweatt said other Texas schools allow teachers to carry weapons, but he would not reveal their locations, saying they are afraid of negative publicity.

The Texas Education Agency said it had not heard of any other schools with such a policy. And the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence did not know of any other districts nationwide that allow school employees to carry concealed handguns.

But that may change soon.

Oklahoma state Rep. Mark McCullough said he is working on a bill that would allow teachers and administrators to receive firearms training through the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training, which would authorize them to carry weapons at school and at school events. Other states are proposing or considering similar measures.

However, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder this week vetoed legislation that would have allowed concealed weapons in schools, churches and day care centres, saying he seeks a more "thoughtful review" that includes school emergency policies and mental health-related issues.

In Texas, guns have an honoured place in the state's culture, and politicians often describe owning a gun as essential to being Texan. At the state capitol, concealed handgun license holders are allowed to skip the metal detectors that scan visitors.

Gov. Rick Perry has indicated he would prefer to give gun owners the widest possible latitude. Just days after the Connecticut attack, Perry said permit holders should be able to carry concealed weapons in any public place.

Last year, many Texas lawmakers supported a plan to give college students and professors with concealed handgun licenses the right to carry guns on campus, but the measure failed.

Opponents insist that having more people armed at a school, especially teachers or administrators who aren't trained to deal with crime on a daily basis, could lead to more injuries and deaths. They point to an August shooting outside the Empire State Building, where police killed a laid-off clothing designer after he fatally shot his former colleague. Nine bystanders were wounded by police gunfire, ricochets and fragments.

"You are going to put teachers, people teaching 6-year-olds in a school, and expect them to respond to an active-shooter situation?" said Ladd Everitt, a spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, who called the idea of arming teachers "madness."

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner said she would not have felt better if teachers at her children's Seattle school had been armed during a May shooting at a nearby cafe. A gunman killed four people at the cafe and another woman during a carjacking before killing himself. The school went on lockdown as a precaution.

"It would be highly concerning to me to know that guns were around my kids each and every day. ... Increasing our arms is not the answer," said Rowe-Finkbeiner, co-founder and CEO of MomsRising.org.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign, said focusing on arming teachers distracts from the "real things" that could help prevent a school shooting "and at worse it furthers a dangerous conversation that only talks about guns as protection without a discussion about the serious risks they present."

As the debate continues, Harrold's school plans to leave its policy unchanged.

"Nothing is 100 per cent at all. ... But hope makes for a terrible plan, hoping that (a tragedy) won't happen," Thweatt said. "My question is: What have you done about it? How have you planned?"

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Five+states+consider+arming+teachers+Texas+school+already/7726725/story.html#ixzz2FewIQaFF

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Head of the NRA at his press conference.........

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"

Also he called on congress to immediately fund armed police for every school in America.

Said all that with a straight face too. :picard:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do not agree please show me where SCOTUS has overruled itself on a major constitutional decision within decades of the impugned ruling.

In the case of the Second Amendment the time span was almost 70 years.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not different according the the US statistics on firearm crimes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to show you where it has been.

If Obama replaces the aforementioned conservative judges who were in the majority of those opinions with typical views of liberalism and textualism, stare decisis will not be emphasised, and gun control laws will not be reversed.

If practicality and how these judges issue rulings is something that you will continue to ignore, then be my guest, historical significance of overturning is moot to those sitting judges without respect for precedence, as has been seen in the more recent Texas sodomy law case. There is no reason to believe that replacing Kennedy, Thomas, or Scalia, with a similar type of Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, or Sotomayor, will result in the same ruling as Heller. If you believe this to be the case, and they would rule the same as Heller, you need more studying the way judges interpret law. I'm not even a lawyer and I see this quite clearly.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those statistics don't show what happens the majority of the time when gangs use guns against civilians for intimidation and don't actually shoot anyone.

Or all the instances where guns weren't a factor at all.

Remember, down there there's a better than even chance that muggings, holdups, carjackings, swarmings etc are carried out by gang members.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you have no evidence beyond fantasy that this would happen. Good to know,

I am quite aware of how judges interpret law. You... not so much.

Unlike you I am a lawyer and specialized in constitutional law academically (both degrees) and in practise.

You are a perfect example of the old maxim that a little knowledge (and as you have so clearly demonstrated so very little knowledge on this subject) is a dangerous thing.

As always lighting the path for the uninformed.

professor+clip+art.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can show you even further how judges, especially on the left, do not respect precedent much anymore, but the effort I feel is wasteful since you're so full of yourself and in typical lawyer fashion cannot admit to being wrong. I hope you can find a maxim to clutch that might be helpful for you in this regard.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the absolute definition of irony.

You have a differing opinion from that of virtually the entire board and ignore the overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary, yet you continually trot out this laughable "You're so full of yourself, you can't admit you're wrong" garbage.

In this particular case, your own inflated ego has you telling an actual lawyer that your knowledge of the legal system trumps his.

Since you are so knowledgable about most things, I'm going to assume that you'tr familiar with the "Pot, meet kettle" maxim.....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere am I saying my wisdom of law trumps his, however, if things are done a certain way, without respect for precedence, it's a complete red herring to quote one specific little niche of important rulings where precedence was kept. This is the type of nitpicking that lawyers do in attempt to win cases. I don't employ this type of logic, of which Wetcoaster hilariously feels is inferior. On the other hand, I have shown (which you gleefully ignore) that sitting judges do NOT respect precedence, so why would precedence be respected here when the case inevitably comes full circle, especially under the logical conditions that one of the conservative judges gets replaced with a liberal one? If you're going to jump in an argument you should focus on the argument and not kissing a poster's *** because you don't like who he is responding to. But what I'm asking for is an actual change to your posting habit, so what am I thinking.. carry on.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a niche.

Constitutional interpretation is quite different from other areas of law. You appear to be blissfully ignorant of this most basic fact. The Supreme Court moves very slowly on constitutional issues because of its import and while it can overrule itself that is quite rare and certainly not in compressed time frames.

As I pointed out above:

That would be a first - SCOTUS reversing a major constitutional decision in less than 50 years. You know that old saying... the chances f that happening are slim and none and slim has long since left the building.

And:

If you do not agree please show me where SCOTUS has overruled itself on a major constitutional decision within decades of the impugned ruling.

In the case of the Second Amendment the time span was almost 70 years.

Your problem is that you employ no logic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can sit there calling something a "fact" all you like, it does not change that judges from 70 years ago do not make rulings on things put before the court today. The link I provided showed sitting judges who do not follow stare decisis. The way judges from the court today interpret rulings is important, because if they do not employ stare decisis, which most do NOT anymore unless it conveniences their political ideology, the rulings from 70 years ago are completely fracking irrelevant, aren't they? Why yes, zaibatsu, they sure are. Thanks Wetcoaster for being a lawyer and showing you can in, fact, use logic when it doesn't best suit your argument.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you have failed to grasp the difference between interpreting an entrenched Constitution and how other laws are interpreted The process is quite different - Constitutional Law 101.

My knowledge base comes from some of the foremost constitutional lawyers and scholars who were my professors including J.J. (Hamish) Gow. QC, Brian R.D. Smith , QC (former AG of BC), The Honourable Ronald I. Cheffins, QC, (former Justice of Appeal of the Courts of Appeal for British Columbia and author of several books on constitutional law) , the dean of constituional scholars and lawyers William R. Lederman, QC (http://www.queensu.c...lliamralph.html ), noted civil libertarian, constitutional scholar, lawyer and former justice of the BC Suprem CourtThomas R. Berger, OC OBC, QC ( http://en.wikipedia....homas_R._Berger). etc.

And you?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, you believe that giving me your CV (I'm surprised you didn't use the word "facts") will shut me up, but no surprise you overlook it isn't either of us interpreting constitutional law in this case, we're discussing SCOTUS/higher court judges and their respect for precedence. You look at one single factor which is the second amendment alone (while citing constitutional law as a whole), which ignores virtually everything else. No amount of namecalling, resume citing, or holier-than-thou posts will make up for your inability to recognize the high court's dwindling respect for precedence and more importantly, sitting judges who actually make rulings today. If it was as unambiguous as you say there'd be no need for confirmation hearings (although to be fair, confirmation hearings didn't see the Souter effect coming).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.