gun control ... is legally very much in question everywhere

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar
A-R
Senior Member
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

gun control ... is legally very much in question everywhere

Post by A-R »

Interesting article from NPR on SCOTUS Justic Stevens - one of the liberal 4 on the court. Especially his take on the future of gun control in this country ...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... c=fb&cc=fp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
How High Court Could Change If Stevens Retires
March 15, 2010

In the March 22 issue of The New Yorker, legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin profiles Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court's longest-serving member.

Stevens, who will celebrate his 90th birthday on April 20, was appointed to the court in 1975 by President Gerald Ford and, as Toobin writes, "is a generation or two away from most of his colleagues; when [Justice John] Roberts served as a law clerk to William H. Rehnquist, Stevens had already been a Justice for five years." Speculation is growing that Stevens will step down from the court at the end of the current term, in June 2010.

"Last fall he had announced that he had only hired one law clerk, which suggested to a lot of people that instead of hiring the customary four, he was really moving towards retirement," Toobin tells Fresh Air host Terry Gross. "So I asked him, 'Are you going to retire at the end of this term?' And he said he hadn't completely made up his mind. He said his law clerks had agreed to serve longer, if he wanted them to, but it was certainly my impression that he is leaning towards retiring very soon."

The New Yorker: Jeffery Toobin
In this show, Terry Gross and Jeffrey Toobin discuss his March 22, 2010, cover story about Justice Stevens that appeared in The New Yorker. Click below to read that profile.

After Stevens by Jeffrey Toobin

Among the major decisions pending from the Supreme Court is McDonald v. Chicago, a case examining the legality of Chicago's handgun ban.

The high court has already ruled recently on gun control: In 2008, justices struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. But that ruling applied only to the nation's capital. The case now before the Supreme Court tests whether the limits on gun bans apply to state and local governments.

Jeffrey Toobin is a 1986 graduate of Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
"The issue in McDonald v. Chicago that the court is currently deciding is, 'Does a state have to honor the Second Amendment in the same way [that D.C. does]?' " says Toobin. "My guess is the court will incorporate the Second Amendment and will ban gun control in the states, and we are in for decades of litigation trying to figure out what gun control is legal and what gun control isn't."

Toobin is currently a staff writer at The New Yorker and a senior legal analyst for CNN. He is also the author of The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court.


Interview Highlights

On Stevens' retirement plans


[The Obama administration has] very much suspected that a vacancy [on the Supreme Court] is imminent and I think they do have a candidate in mind and frankly I think I know who it is. I think it's going to be Elena Kagan, the current solicitor general and the former dean of Harvard Law School.


- Jeffery Toobin
"He didn't say that [he wanted to retire during the Obama administration] directly, but he definitely spoke of his admiration for Obama; they are fellow Chicagoans, something Justice Stevens takes very seriously. And if you look at Justice Stevens' place in the court and how he votes, even though he was appointed by [Republican President] Gerald Ford in 1975, he is very much at the center or the head of the progressive wing in the Supreme Court. So it is very evident to him that Obama will appoint someone who will vote similarly, and that's important to him."

On how Stevens and the Supreme Court have changed since 1980

"[Stevens] was a Republican appointee, and he did dwell in the center of the court for many years. And now it is very clear that he is on the left. I asked Justice Stevens that question: 'Have you changed or [has] the court changed?' And his answer was very clear: 'The court has changed.' It's a much more conservative court. The moderate Republicans with whom he served — Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, David Souter — they're all gone. And the four conservatives on the court [Antonin Scalia, Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas] are much more conservative than where the center used to be."

On Stevens' trying to sway Justice Anthony Kennedy to take the liberal side in Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

"In Supreme Court history ... we often put too much emphasis on who wrote the opinion and not enough on who assigned the opinion, because that can be very important. Oftentimes, these coalitions are very fragile. So it is the assigning justice's job to assign the opinion to the justice who you might lose if someone else wrote it. By giving Lawrence v. Texas to Kennedy, Stevens held on to [Kennedy's] vote and preserved this enormous victory for gay rights — even though it's Kennedy who gets the glory, not Stevens."

On Kennedy's role on the Supreme Court

"Since [Justice] Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down in 2005, the court has been more directly and obviously polarized than it's been anytime in its history. You have four very conservative justices — Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts. You have four pretty liberal justices — Stevens, [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg, [Stephen] Breyer and [Sonia] Sotomayor. Winning in the Supreme Court now is about getting Justice Kennedy's vote. He has a mercurial, sometimes hard-to-predict view of the law, but it's all about getting Justice Kennedy's vote. Stevens has been very artful in persuading Justice Kennedy to join his side in some cases. He hasn't always won. In fact, he's lost a lot with Kennedy. But it's all about getting Kennedy's vote."

On what it will mean if the handgun ban is overturned

"It would mean that no state can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. What that means is hard to say. Does that mean that you and I have the right to buy a Stinger missile? Does that mean we have the right to buy a tank? My sense is I don't think that's what the Supreme Court is going to mean. But they are going to have to refine what they mean by 'keep and bear arms' over many years, and this area of the law — which had been settled for decades, that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms — is suddenly wide open. And gun control is not just politically on the ropes; it is legally very much in question everywhere."


On Stevens' departure, if and when it happens

"This will not be a surprise to the Obama administration. They have very much suspected that a vacancy is imminent, and I think they do have a candidate in mind — and frankly, I think I know who it is. I think it's going to be Elena Kagan, the current solicitor general and the former dean of Harvard Law School. She has a reputation as a consensus builder. She is someone who brought vigorously fighting factions at Harvard together. She worked in the Clinton administration and had good relationships with Republicans in Congress at the time. She has never been a judge, which I think is a point in her favor for Obama. There are all former judges on the court now, and I think Obama wants people of more different backgrounds. So I think she's the likely choice."
User avatar
gigag04
Senior Member
Posts: 5474
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:47 pm
Location: Houston

Re: gun control ... is legally very much in question everywh

Post by gigag04 »

I think Clint Eastwood would be a much better justice myself.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
Rex B
Senior Member
Posts: 3616
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: DFW

Re: gun control ... is legally very much in question everywh

Post by Rex B »

Thanks for posting that. I caught a little of it on the way to lunch today, but could not listen to the whole thing.
Very interesting
-----------
“Sometimes there is no alternative to uncertainty except to await the arrival of more and better data.” C. Wunsch
MechAg94
Senior Member
Posts: 1584
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:28 pm

Re: gun control ... is legally very much in question everywh

Post by MechAg94 »

"It would mean that no state can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. What that means is hard to say. Does that mean that you and I have the right to buy a Stinger missile? Does that mean we have the right to buy a tank? My sense is I don't think that's what the Supreme Court is going to mean. But they are going to have to refine what they mean by 'keep and bear arms' over many years, and this area of the law — which had been settled for decades, that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms — is suddenly wide open. And gun control is not just politically on the ropes; it is legally very much in question everywhere."
Why can't I buy a missile launcher? How is an RPG with practice shots more dangerous than a decently high powered rifle? Is has less range. :cool:

It sounds like there will be incorporation. That sounds like a good thing.
User avatar
marksiwel
Banned
Posts: 1964
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:35 pm
Location: Cedar Park/Austin

Re: gun control ... is legally very much in question everywh

Post by marksiwel »

MechAg94 wrote:
"It would mean that no state can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. What that means is hard to say. Does that mean that you and I have the right to buy a Stinger missile? Does that mean we have the right to buy a tank? My sense is I don't think that's what the Supreme Court is going to mean. But they are going to have to refine what they mean by 'keep and bear arms' over many years, and this area of the law — which had been settled for decades, that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms — is suddenly wide open. And gun control is not just politically on the ropes; it is legally very much in question everywhere."
Why can't I buy a missile launcher? How is an RPG with practice shots more dangerous than a decently high powered rifle? Is has less range. :cool:

It sounds like there will be incorporation. That sounds like a good thing.
I dont think I could afford an RP4.
Also theres no law against owning a Tank is there?
In Capitalism, Man exploits Man. In Communism, it's just the reverse
User avatar
A-R
Senior Member
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: gun control ... is legally very much in question everywh

Post by A-R »

marksiwel wrote:
MechAg94 wrote:
"It would mean that no state can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. What that means is hard to say. Does that mean that you and I have the right to buy a Stinger missile? Does that mean we have the right to buy a tank? My sense is I don't think that's what the Supreme Court is going to mean. But they are going to have to refine what they mean by 'keep and bear arms' over many years, and this area of the law — which had been settled for decades, that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms — is suddenly wide open. And gun control is not just politically on the ropes; it is legally very much in question everywhere."
Why can't I buy a missile launcher? How is an RPG with practice shots more dangerous than a decently high powered rifle? Is has less range. :cool:

It sounds like there will be incorporation. That sounds like a good thing.
I dont think I could afford an RP4.
Also theres no law against owning a Tank is there?
Probably not, as long as you don't also own any ammo for it. I'm guessing the shells would be regulated like explosives by BATFE? But I really have no idea.
chabouk
Banned
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:01 am

Re: gun control ... is legally very much in question everywh

Post by chabouk »

Jeffrey Toobin is a 1986 graduate of Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
"The issue in McDonald v. Chicago that the court is currently deciding is, 'Does a state have to honor the Second Amendment in the same way [that D.C. does]?' " says Toobin. "My guess is the court will incorporate the Second Amendment and will ban gun control in the states, and we are in for decades of litigation trying to figure out what gun control is legal and what gun control isn't."
Gee, I've never been to law school, but I've been saying exactly the same thing since we first started speculating about the possible outcome of Heller before it was even decided.


austinrealtor wrote:
marksiwel wrote: I dont think I could afford an RP4.
Also theres no law against owning a Tank is there?
Probably not, as long as you don't also own any ammo for it. I'm guessing the shells would be regulated like explosives by BATFE? But I really have no idea.
A tank's main gun is a "destructive device" that must be taxed and registered on the NFA list. Any ammo that explodes is the same. Most modern tank ammo is kinetic energy, not explosive. Hooray for sabot rounds!

There are plenty of tanks in private hands, legally owned. Not modern ones, because the cost is too high, and DoD won't sell modern ones to the surplus market (they destroy them instead).
User avatar
davidtx
Senior Member
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:24 pm
Location: Dripping Springs, TX

Re: gun control ... is legally very much in question everywh

Post by davidtx »

marksiwel wrote:[snip]
Also theres no law against owning a Tank is there?
I don't think so. Bob Levine, one of the founders of Cabletron, owned a Sherman Tank. He used to delight in driving down to the gate to greet the pizza boy. He apparently used to drive customers around in it as well: http://blogs.bnet.com/salesmachine/?p=49
User avatar
marksiwel
Banned
Posts: 1964
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:35 pm
Location: Cedar Park/Austin

Re: gun control ... is legally very much in question everywh

Post by marksiwel »

deleted
Last edited by marksiwel on Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In Capitalism, Man exploits Man. In Communism, it's just the reverse
User avatar
FL450
Senior Member
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:48 am
Location: Pearland, Texas

Re: gun control ... is legally very much in question everywh

Post by FL450 »

marksiwel wrote:
MechAg94 wrote:
"It would mean that no state can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. What that means is hard to say. Does that mean that you and I have the right to buy a Stinger missile? Does that mean we have the right to buy a tank? My sense is I don't think that's what the Supreme Court is going to mean. But they are going to have to refine what they mean by 'keep and bear arms' over many years, and this area of the law — which had been settled for decades, that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms — is suddenly wide open. And gun control is not just politically on the ropes; it is legally very much in question everywhere."
Why can't I buy a missile launcher? How is an RPG with practice shots more dangerous than a decently high powered rifle? Is has less range. :cool:

It sounds like there will be incorporation. That sounds like a good thing.
I dont think I could afford an RP4.
Also theres no law against owning a Tank is there?
if you modified a tank to shoot 45 cal ammo would that be considered a long gun, If so that's legal isn't it. My old boss owned multiple tanks and a tracked anphibien in England and had a permit to drive the tracked anphibien on the street so he could take it into the English Channel.
I love the sound smell of jet fuel in the morning.
Fat thumbs + IPhone = errors, please forgive.
MechAg94
Senior Member
Posts: 1584
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:28 pm

Re: gun control ... is legally very much in question everywh

Post by MechAg94 »

I think Tanks are legal or can be, but most have the guns disabled at least as far as I know.

IMO, owning RPG's, mortar launchers, grenade launchers, and such wouldn't be any more dangerous than a high powered rifle if the explosive rounds weren't available. I can understand wanting to regulate or restrict the explosive ordnance, but non-explosive practice rounds shouldn't be too much of an issue. Is an 80mm inert practice mortar round flying 800 yards any more dangerous than a 50 cal rifle? Sure, it would be expensive, but it wouldn't be more dangerous. I guess I am thinking more in the way things should be, not what they are.

It goes to that argument on gun forums about how far the 2nd amendment goes. IMO, it can go pretty far without really changing any sort of "public risk". Most heavier weapons would be expensive as hell anyway which would be its own restriction.
Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”