Court Cases
The nunchuk and Chicago case to be considered for cert. the same day.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 11th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I like the blog that this post links to, but there is too much lawyer lingo in it for me. And some more of that talk about certs and such – do they mean breath mints, or what?
Can somebody explain this stuff in layman’s terms? Does this mean that the Second A. has a chance of being heard for incorporation? That’s all that matters, right?
September 12th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Granting cert means that the SCOTUS will hear the case. Incorporation is possible, especially if they combine the two cases together.
The NY case is basically challenging the 2nd circuit’s ruling that Nuchakus are not “arms” and thus not protected by the 2nd amendment, also in that case the court ruled that the second amendment was not incorporated.
The Chicago case is a challenge to the city’s ban on handguns not registered after the cut off year. This case has also been denied incorporation.
It is entirely possible for the SCOTUS to rule on both cases without deciding the incorporation part, but I SERIOUSLY doubt it.
September 12th, 2009 at 11:13 am
EDIT: Granting Cert means that the court will hear the case, they are deciding if they want to or not on the 29th.
September 12th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Thanks, Chris.
I don’t understand why we are even having this argument about incorporation. Doesn’t Article IV and the “supremacy clause” basically determine that any State laws that are contrary to the Constitution are null and void; such as those prohibiting firearm ownership/usage?
Would anyone challenge that any of the other Amendments, such as freedom of speech can be abridged at the State level, and the Bill of Rights merely protects us from Federal infringement?
Absurd.
September 13th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Nunchakus are arms. That’s not theoretical; there’s a history of peasants showing up for battle with their flails, which is what a nunchaku is – a flail. It’s an ancient agricultural implement used to thresh grain that can be pressed into service as a second-rate weapon.
I can imagine a military commander in Roman times, or the middle ages, shaking his head when he sees that some of his troops are merely peasants with flails. Nunchakus are covered by the Second Amendment, along with scythes, sickles, and pitchforks. That’s laughable to most people, who wouldn’t have a problem with that interpretation, except for one crude, paranoid, urban whack job from Crooklyn who said during her confirmation hearing, “It can bust someone’s skull”.
If she recuses herself from the upcoming case, we may miss her erudite analysis of the terminal effects of sickles, pitchforks, rakes, shovels and hoes, but we’ll likely be better off without her.