podcast 7/7/09 Public v private

[fightingquaker13]

For those of you that have a business that you think you can run any way you want, do me a favor, post a NO JEWS or NO BLACKS sign on your front door today. Care to guess how long you’ll stay in business?

Sure you can post that on your home, which is CLOSED to the general public, but once you open a business your rights as a property owner are limited.

As for the choice argument, the guy doesn’t have to be a Jew does he? He can convert to something else, right? Then he can come in. You really think that would work in court?

And why is that? Because under the amendments to the Constitution it has been decided that you can’t discriminate or violate rights based on race, age, religion or sex. As all the rights defined in the Constitution are of equal importance, why is it that it is OK to violate my 2nd amendment rights?

So back to my original question, has anyone ever fought a gun ban based on the equal protection of a right under the law?

Heller now clearly spells out that the 2nd is an individual right. As such I think it may be a route to rolling back many of the infringements we suffer under.

Sadly, not until its incorporated, that is, applied to the states. Let me drop the political nit picking and nonsense that seems to occur every time Tom, TAB and I get into the same thread (and my apologies to the rest of you who patiently put up with it) and cut straight to professor mode. The bottom line (Cliff notes version) is this. Baron v Baltimore in 1805 held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the feds, not the states. This changed with the 14th ammendment's due process and equal protection clauses. The Court began, starting in the twenties, to apply the Bill of Rights to state as well as federal law (incorporation). The standard has been "fundamental" rights (as defined by the Court) have been inccorporated. All but the 8A's prohibition against excessive fines and bail and the 2A's RTKBA were incorporated. Heller established that the 2A was an individual right to RTKBA, not a collective right, as in a "well organized militia". Good news as far as it goes, however, it only applies to the feds as the law now stands, as Heller took place in DC. The true test will be whether the Court applies this to the states and says that RTKBA is fundamental, individual, and shall not be infringed not just by Congress, but by state legilatures as well. If it does, we win, if it doesn't its the status quo or worse.
FQ13

[ericire12]

This will all fizzle out around page 5...... thankfully

[philw]

This will all fizzle out around page 5...... thankfully

bets on    for 8 pages 

hehe




could be worse,   

I agree with what MB said in his podcast    however I don't get that option over here   

[mudman]

 The turd roller had it right FO fq.

[tombogan03884]

The turd roller had it right FO fq.

FQ is correct as far as he went. What he neglected to pursue is that there are currently at least 2 court cases in process that have lead to opposing opinions which will lead back to SCOTUS. The cases were filed intentionally to achieve incorporation at which point ( Based on the current 5-4 split in SCOTUS ) most restrictions on firearms ownership will be rendered unConstitutional.

[Sponsor]

[TAB]

for those that seem to think heller is the end all be all...

what heller basicly said was, the DC law forbiding hand guns in the home was illegal.

so you can have a hand gun in th ehome for SD, in a condtion that is ready to be used.

it left everything else out on purpose.