Comment: Curious. in Opinion: Seattle Breaks the Law Again, Attacks Law-Abiding Gun Owners on Opposing Views

This content is inappropriate

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:

(Opinion) Seattle Breaks the Law Again, Attacks Law-Abiding Gun Owners

By NRA

You are seeing 7 Comments. See all 13 Comments on this Opinion.

Regarding Comment

Delusions abound.

Curious.

Assuming that SCOTUS decides to incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states. I believe they will, but I'm less confident than you are. Frankly, I thought the majority opinion in Heller was weak since it failed to address many of Steven's very good points based on our history. I still would have sided with the majority, but I thought the opinion was poorly constructed.

Anyway, to my point. If the 2nd amendment is incorporated, are you one of the people who holds that the government cannot or is extremely limited in what places it can ban weapons, like in this case of a park or community center? And if you do believe they can limit possession in certain places, where would you draw the line (in general)?

One of the disappointments of the Heller decision is that they barely addressed that concern. It was just a vague line about sensitive places like schools or government buildings. It made sense they didn't comment on that, given the case, but it would have been interesting (and helpful for states) to get a formal opinion.

I go to a pretty liberal university, so it's nearly impossible to find gun rights people to actually discuss this with so I'm jumping on my chance.

- caelum October 19, 2009 1:06AM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- I'm up for the discussion.
  
  "Assuming that SCOTUS decides to incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states. I believe they will, but I'm less confident than you are."
  
  Much of my prediction comes from the make-up of the court. It just leans to the right, plain and simple. Some comes from my reading of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in McDonald v. Chicago. The case is made so well, that I would be surprised if the case was sent back down for review or if they opined in favor of Chicago.
  
  The rest comes from pure hope. I hope that the Court will rule similarly the Heller Court.
  
  "Frankly, I thought the majority opinion in Heller was weak since it failed to address many of Steven's very good points based on our history."
  
  We have to acknowledge that the Court will answer the question. It doesn't have to address everything brought up in argument. I'd have liked to see a broader opinion also, but now that McDonald will be heard, I am kind of glad they didn't rule broadly. This is because the McDonald opinion might incorporate the 2nd, and this is arguably much better for those who value gun rights .
  
  "Anyway, to my point. If the 2nd amendment is incorporated, are you one of the people who holds that the government cannot or is extremely limited in what places it can ban weapons, like in this case of a park or community center? And if you do believe they can limit possession in certain places, where would you draw the line (in general)?"
  
  Short answer: Yes. I think that the 2nd would prohibit the government from banning firearms in public places. There should not be anything illegal about a citizen observing his/her 2nd amendment right. I also think that since the government can withhold funding to private entities if they violate other civil liberties, the same should be the case with this civil liberty. If your school receives federal finding, then they should stand to lose that funding for violating your 2nd amendment right. With incorporation, the same thing would hold true for state funding, wouldn't it?
  
  "One of the disappointments of the Heller decision is that they barely addressed that concern."
  Yeah, Roberts left it pretty open to interpretation. I explain why below.
  
  It was just a vague line about sensitive places like schools or government buildings."
  He left it open to interpretation to get enough votes, most likely. They knew that there would be further cases on the subject and since Heller was narrow in its scope, being in D.C. only, latitude was extended to Congress. I don't know how widely it will rule in McDonald, but it will apply to all of the states since it originated in a state.
  
  - SolarSanitizer October 19, 2009 2:05AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Slightly Disagree.
    
    You appear to take it slightly farther than I would. I think certain bans like at schools or in courthouses would be appropriate and meet strict scrutiny. I think in places like schools or courthouses you could make the argument that it meets that standard because you are attempting to impose something necessary or crucial, such as the feeling of safety or security in an educational or judicial environment . We can debate whether the fear is rational or irrational, but the reality is that some people are just afraid of someone that has a gun (especially if they have it in a school ) and I think a case could be made that the government has a significant interest in preserving those institutions from (irrational or rational) fear on the part of people partaking in them. I'm fine in most places, but I tend to thing arms can be restricted in certain places (the case of Seattle here with parks and community center is overly broad and doesn't meet the tailored requirement, in my opinion).
    
    On funding, I agree you are technically correct that the government can withhold funding for institutions that do that. I doubt they ever would, either at a state or federal level. A democratic administration (either federal or state) never would and I'm not even sure a republican one would want to deal with the political backlash from those moderates who go with republicans mostly on economic policy grounds, unless they were in an overwhelmingly red state.
    
    - caelum October 19, 2009 12:22PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Of course you are free to disagree.
      
      I can be content that it is only by a slight degree, which means we are largely on the same page.
      
      As for the courthouse/schoolhouse bans:
      
      Concealed carry solves the conflict. Nobody has their civil liberty "abridged" and nobody is afraid (rationally or irrationally).
      
      On funding:
      
      If/when America learns to prize their 2nd amendment right as much as they prize all other incorporated rights, popular opinion could very well change .
      
      Imagine a State University that systemically banned the students' 1st, 4th, or 5th amendment right? Think the government would fund them? Why should there be any difference whatsoever for the 2nd amendment?
      
      - SolarSanitizer October 19, 2009 4:42PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - shame on you
    
    I hope that the Court will rule similarly the Heller Court.
    
    such poor grammar.
    
    - dingo1 October 21, 2009 2:28AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - You know...
      
      You seem like a person who would be more interested in your second amendment rights than the average person. We have that in common, actually.
      
      I would like to hear your thoughts on the Petition for a writ of Certiorari in the case of McDonald v. Chicago.
      http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mcdonald_cert_petition1.pdf
      
      So, how about it? Are you interested in on-topic discussion?
      
      - SolarSanitizer October 21, 2009 2:54AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- To further clarify a particular point.
  
  The Heller decision only applied to the federal government , since the case originated in D.C.
  
  The opinion of the McDonald and NRA cases against Chicago will be binding to every state in the union, if the 2nd amendment is incorporated.
  
  Incorporation means that through the 14th amendment, selected rights in the constitution apply to the states. This is how slaves gained the legal status: People, as opposed to property. If you already knew this all, my apologies. It seemed that you either did not, or forgot about it, when you stated, "...but it would have been interesting (and helpful for states) to get a formal opinion."
  
  - SolarSanitizer October 19, 2009 2:47AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.