03/02/2010 03:06:03 AM EST

The implications are staggering!

posted by MedfordTim

Soon, the SCOTUS will be reviewing the constitutionality of Chicago's anti gun laws. After reading Supreme Court gun case could imperil basis of state laws at Raw Story, my mind is reeling with the possibilities.

We have a Conservative SCOTUS. It is not unlikely for them to side with the "It ain't Constitutional!" crowd. If they DO, it is POSSIBLE that the law of Unintended Consequences - "Any intervention in a complex system may or may not have the intended result, but will inevitably create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes" - will have many people saying "WTF??"

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

Check it out:

"...the challenge to Chicago's handgun ban isn't about the Second Amendment; it's about the 14th Amendment, which states that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

What I usually refer to as the "Anti-States Rights clause. (Okay, it's the first time I've called it that, but is IS catchy, huh?)

True, it is the most ignored and unenforced of all the amendments, the "due process" part gets the glory - but it's THERE.

Annie Davis of Yahoo! News says "The potential implications of this case are huge – and not just for gun rights. If the privileges-or-immunities argument prevails, it would bring back a constitutional argument that has been effectively dead since 1873, when a decision (known as the Slaughter-House cases) said that the clause only protects rights of national citizenship. But if the court reinterprets this clause, the wording is so broad that some think it could bring a flood of challenges to numerous other laws. Others fear a privileges-or-immunities revival will lead to too much judicial subjectivity."


This is, i believe, going to be very interesting as the layers get peeled away.
< Another video link | New political song by TYT member >
 Display:
The implications are staggering! | 1 comment (1 topical, 0 hidden)
You're thinking small (none / 0)
It's not just handguns. That would be the 2nd Amendment.

The way you describe it, Wyatt was breaking the law by not following "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The same could be said of Oregon if it tried to ban handguns.

But your Texas one is intriguing - if this ruling goes through. the Texas law would be invalid because the second amendment overrules it. People everywhere (in the states) would have the same option to carry or not.

Think if how it will affect other laws. No more "Free Speech" zones because they abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

I think you are missing the bigger picture. This would curtail the HELL out of "state's rights."

by MedfordTim on 03/02/2010 12:38:33 PM EST

The implications are staggering! | 1 comment (1 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: