There is no sentence for DVO Respondents. Those are not crimes, but we take their guns away. We take them away from convicted felons, whether they are in jail, probated, paroled, etc. There is no law that changes their citizenship status, they are the same as you and I except that they have been convicted of felonies. If we take away their second Amendment rights upon conviction, should they also lose their 1st, 4th, 14th amendment rights? Why is the second amendment right more or less worthy of protection?

As I said, once they've served their time, all rights should be restored to them including free speech, search and seizure, due process, etc.

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174

 

One important Second Amendment precedent is the 1939 decision of United States v. Miller.

 

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off shotgun] 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."

 

Interested to see your take on this Hearsay.

 

There are essentially three sections in the Second Amendment that may not be strong and seperate enough to be clauses.

 

A collective right of the people to bear arms for the purpose of the well regulated militia.

 

An individual right, only for those within the well regulated militia.

 

An individual right to own and possess arms, with similar status as freedom of speech or religion.

 

The court has set precedent that applies to the first two clauses, and not the third. The current court may have to essentially create case law that defines clauses in the Second Amendment.

I noticed that four other states are listed on the docket as interested parties. New York, Hawaii, Illinois, and Maryland.

And TTC, Freedom of Religion has two clauses: Freedom of Religion, and Freedom from religion- The establishment clause.

 

Depending on how one defines "freedom from religion" and "the establishment clause", these two terms are not necessarily the same. Personally, I don't think the 1st amendment barring establishment of religion by the government is the same as "freedom from religion".

 

When I use the term "freedom from religion" I am referring to that which is happening to day....i.e. not allowing prayers before athletic events etc.

I wonder how much $$$ the NRA's lawyers is being paid to write the amicus?

Depending on how one defines "freedom from religion" and "the establishment clause", these two terms are not necessarily the same. Personally, I don't think the 1st amendment barring establishment of religion by the government is the same as "freedom from religion".

.

 

I think, and some may disagree, that the Court defines them as one and the same. Engel v. Vitale (1962) states: "...the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral...(does not) serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause..." It would be safe to say that any prayer is inherently religious and therefore would be freedom from government sponsored religion. And it can be government sponsored religion and a violation of the establishment clause if whatever action reaches that standard in intent, or in effect when there is no intent.

 

 

When I use the term "freedom from religion" I am referring to that which is happening to day....i.e. not allowing prayers before athletic events etc

 

I have no personal problem with teams praying before games, contests, ect. The problem is what should be allowed and what should not be. The Court must caution itself with the slippery slope. There has to be a line drawn that cannot be crossed.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled agianst public schools having a member of the clergy give non-denominational prayers at Graduation: Lee v. Weisman As far as student led prayer, the Court has been more flexible. In 1994, the KY Attorney General issued a statement of advice, letting schools know of previous cases that dealt with the issues. The advice states that the prayer should be student initiated, non-denominational, and that administration should distance themselves. Of course this advice is from the AG, not the Court. That was the issue, I believe, with Russell County High in 2006. The administration was not far enough from the issue. Some reports had that the prayer was to be clergy led. I don't know that for sure, but if it did, then it would be in violation of the Courts findings in Lee.

Great discussion, start your own thread. This one's on gun control:irked::lol:

Great discussion, start your own thread. This one's on gun control:irked::lol:

 

 

So true, but to some in the Gun Lobby, the Second Amendment is a Religion.

I wonder how much $$$ the NRA's lawyers is being paid to write the amicus?

I hope it's enough to get the job done right... :lol:

 

IMO, it's a shame that an agency outside of our actual lawmakers has to step up to do what should be obvious to a healthy majority of them.

Fastbreak,

 

My post about the amicus was not meant to be endorsing one side or the other. I REALLY just wonder how much $$$$. We read a case in Professional Responsibility where a big Corporation paid a talented lawyer 1 MILLION to write an amicus on behalf of the business.

 

The fee was held to be reasonable despite the fact the case settled.

What is an amicus?

What is an amicus?

You may have heard it referred to as a "friend of the court brief". It's testimony NOT on behalf of any party to a case before the court, but is solely for the benefit of the court.

Essentially, an amicus is a brief advocating for a position, by a NON-Party to the suit.

 

For example, in an employment discrimination case, the EEOC will often write a brief on the issue in the case, even when the party is represented by a private attorney not the commission.

At the time of the writing of the Constituton something like 99.9% of Americans acknowledged the Judeo/Christian Bible and faith... (whether they follwed it to the letter or not.)

 

Virtually everyone believed in and in some way acknowledged a Creator.

 

As a result, human life had a much higher value than it does today.

 

Prayer was not only encouraged and practiced in schools then, the Bible was used as a history text, a reading text, and a source of study.

 

As a result, our society had much higher standards and expectations of conduct than we do today.

 

Today, we have banned Christian prayers in our schools. The name of Jesus is essentially forbidden in public prayers and speeches at our schools. We can teach our kids things with cucumbers and condoms, but we cannot teach them the flawless virtues of Biblically instructed abstinence. Abstaining from casual sex outside of a committed marriage is the only 100% certain method to avoid unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of STDs, but we can't teach it to kids who really need to hear the truth. This is insanity IMO.

 

Since 1973, somewhere around 40 million babies have been killed in their mother's wombs. Do any of you really believe this fact alone has not told our kids that life is more a matter of convenience and perceived value than a God ordained gift?

 

Way back in the dark ages (the mid 1970s) when I was in school, guys would pull into the high school parking lot with a .30-.30, a .30-06 or a shotgun hung in the gun rack in the rear window of their pickup truck. Especially this time of year. No one thought a thing about it, because many of us did it too. We were hunters and outdoorsmen. Guys got into fights all the time. Eyes were blacked, teeth sometimes got knocked out, but no one ever went to their truck and pulled a gun. It just wasn't a consideration. Only a sissy would use a gun to square up a fist fight.

 

I own guns. Although I have had guns pulled and pointed at me on several occasions, I have never attempted to settle a dispute with a gun, much less even pulled one on someone else. I've had the opportunity, I would and I could, but I genuinely believe it is the option of last resort only.

 

Unfortunately, we are not allowed to teach all our citizens the same lessons I was taught that have governed my life with a deep and abiding respect for the sovreignty of God and the value of the humans He created.

 

Did I mention that I think this is insane?

 

Where did you get this data on colonial America or was it a guess?

 

A study was done about 15 years ago and published in "Leadership" Magazine. Studies of church records still in existence from the 18th century revealed that ONLY 17 % of colonial America belonged to a church of any kind. Don't make that era out to be something it wasn't. While there was a great Awakening published in the History books in the early 18th century and a second one in the early 19th, the data of good Christian folks who went to church doesn't support that theory.

 

BTW, please tell me when prayer was banned in schools. What was stopped was the practiced of mandatory public school prayer led by the staff or anyone. Prayer can and still does take place. It just isn't coerced.

 

It seems like you want to blame the absence of that prayer ritual as the reason for out of wedlock sex and pregnancy. Funny, it happened before then too. Ask Pat Robertson.

There seems to be a lot of things that we say the Founding Fathers said in today's world that is not simply and clearly said by the Founding Fathers.

 

For example, the whole church and state separation issue. They could have made that simpler but didn't and left gray area in what they actually meant.

 

They made the statement in regards to their experiences of that day. And the thought of taken away the right of a private owner to not have a gun was probably not in their realm of thinkability.

 

Do you really think that with the idea of how important weapons were in putting food on the table through the hunting that went on at that time, they would have even considered not allowing individuals to own guns?

 

 

So was the notion of weapons that fire at the current rates that our weapons today do.