125
Gun nuts geaux wild down in the bayou : Swingers Discussion 220997
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsGun nuts geaux wild down in the bayou
TOPIC: Gun nuts geaux wild down in the bayou
Created by: Fun_Ahoy
Original Starting post for this thread:
This is about Louisiana's first-in-the-nation adoption of a state constitutional amendment being pushed by the gun lobby in several states. First, some background:

The US Supreme Court decided in Heller that the 2nd Amendment provided a fundamental right to possess firearms and that the right was individual to each person, not just collective to the militia. It reiterated earlier holdings that the right applied only to weapons in common use at the time for lawful purposes, and not to unusually dangerous ones. It also acknowledged that (like all fundamental rights) some restrictions could still be valid. It alluded to several areas in which limitations might pass constitutional muster: unusually dangerous weapons; how and where firearms could be sold, licensed and carried; and that certain felons or mentally ill people could be limited. 

The important thing about Heller is its confirmation of an individual, fundamental right. Anyone challenging a regulation on non-fundamental rights has the burden of showing that the regulation bears no reasonable or "rational relation" to a legitimate government interest. Such challenges almost always fail. 

But when FUNDAMENTAL rights are involved, Courts normally apply what is known as "strict scrutiny" to any restrictions. Then, the restriction is presumed to be invalid and can be upheld constitutionally only if the government can demonstrate that it is carefully tailored to bring about a compelling state interest. Even then, the restriction is invalid unless it is also shown to be the least restrictive method possible of achieving the goal. It might sound like legalese, but it makes a BIG difference. When strict scrutiny applies, the vast majority of restrictions get struck down. 

Heller explicitly rejected use of the lower "reasonable" or "rational relation" test, but stopped short of embracing strict scrutiny in gun cases. That leaves open the possibility that it might judge future challenges to gun restrictions under some lesser or intermediate standard slightly below strict scrutiny (but many experts don't think it will). 

The gun lobby, not satisfied with its victory in Heller, decided to push the envelope. It started sponsoring amendments to state constitutions that go far beyond Heller, and that also monkey with the way courts handle such provisions. 

The first of these to pass was here in Louisiana. It took effect the first of this year, and is already being felt. To be continued ....

GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... More 
 1 to 10 of 108   End
User Details are only visible to members.
"Take the Responsibility, or don't. Just saying your surpervising somebody, but you have no actual responsibility to do so is something only a liberal could defend."

Lol. The liberal trial lawyers are the ones arguing to get rid of sovereign immunity and hold government responsible for malfeasance. Conservative groups have led the charge against holding entities accountable, under the intellectually dishonest banner of tort reform.

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10938 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Is the state liable for any harm that may come to somebody on parole?

Take the Responsibility, or don't. Just saying your surpervising somebody, but you have no actual responsibility to do so is something only a liberal could defend.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(16976 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
If the State is REALLY supervising parolees, is the state then accountable for any crimes they commit?

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(16976 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I have no problem with any of that. I'm just not happy with the way the worded the opinion.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(16976 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"and what other rights can be limited based on it"

There has been long-standing acceptance of the idea that commission of a felony carries repercussions in the form of many rights being forfeited. Commonplace conditions of probation include loss of freedom to travel, to associate with other criminals, to use liquor or drugs, to possess weapons commonly used in crimes, etc. Sometimes probationers are put under curfew, and can even be subjected to a form of debtors prison if they don't pay fines and/or restitution ordered as a condition of parole.

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10938 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Even though both sides said his probation was irrelevant, the Supreme Court found that Draughter’s supervised status inherently lessened his constitutional rights.

“For these persons still under state supervision, we easily find there to be a compelling state interest for the state’s limited infringement of even fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to possess a firearm,” Justice Marcus Clark wrote on behalf of the court."

I wonder how the definition of 'state supervised' can be expanded and what other rights can be limited based on it.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(16976 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Update: The Louisiana Supreme Court recently ruled, limiting its ruling to the specifics of the case referenced in the OP. The Court noted that Draughter was still on probation when he was caught in possession of an assault weapon, and that the State had a compelling interest in protecting its probation officers from having to monitor armed felons. Thus, the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute was upheld even after scrutinizing the statute under the strictest standard.

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10938 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
fj, Liberals minds are made up, "don't confuse them with facts"

Thornton CO
Username hidden
(487 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
After WW1 guns were taken from Germans per treaty. Germany allowed gradually the rearming of the military and people. Hitler passed gun control making it a crime for a specific group of people to not own guns based solely on their heritage. Only "approved" citizens were allowed to own guns.

What kind of fool thinks that is not the sickest form of gun control.

Most liberals lack common sense, the rest of them are complete blooming idiots.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19318 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
You realize that your rifle which fires one kind of bullet won't work with the bullets your buddy uses if he has another caliber of rifle?

You realize that you cannot stop a tank with a rifle, don't you? That in WWII, the Nazi's would have exterminated the Jews in place... Did exterminate the Jews in place... Hence the battle for the gettos? You know, the place where the Jews armed themselves and did put up a battle against a battle hardened military, supplied with the very best (at the time) weapons of war... vrs hunting rifles.

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(7431 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... More 
 1 to 10 of 108   End
TOPIC: Gun nuts geaux wild down in the bayou