Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People on both sides of the debate need to be careful about this happening.
If things follow according to precedent, gun rights might wind up in a golden age. Heller states reasonable restrictions, and people have been banging that drum. However McDonald incorporated the 2nd under the 14th's due process, making gun ownership a fundamental right. This would mean that gun laws are reviewed under strict scrutiny (as all rights protected by the 14ths due process are), how many gun laws does anyone think would survive such scrutiny.
The alternative is that the court doesn't apply strict scrutiny, which is a dangerous precedent in itself, because it opens the way for all fundamental rights to be reviewed under less stringent review.
I think this is perhaps why the SCOTUS has avoided taking any more 2nd Amendment cases, most recently Jackson v. San Francisco, since the McDonald ruling, because they're very aware that taking any cases will result in one outcome or the other, and it's possible that the SCOTUS is avoidant to allow the lawmakers to come to terms with it. Of course if they don't come to terms with it within a reasonable period the SCOTUS will have to accept some case, and then the fallout will either be of huge benefit to gun rights, or detrimental to all rights.
That's correct but EOs can be unsigned by his successor.
Did anyone really expect him to do anything else? This is his last year in office. He's going to do whatever he wants and knows it takes time for anything he does to be settled in courts. The man is anything but stupid.
His doing so also takes heat off Hillary (okay, Bernie too), in that they don't have to make it a campaign issue beyond just stating "I'll defer to the courts".
That's correct but EOs can be unsigned by his successor.
Hey, I've already explained how even this EO has no legal standing in my opinion.
I'm just pointing out that people who are screaming "reasonable restrictions" need to be careful, because there's a good chance that even if they win, they will lose.
I must have missed the constitutional amendment where the executive branch was give authority to write laws.
As much as it pains me to say this, I almost wish a republican became elected and started signing eo for a bunch of conservative ideals, maybe something banning state laws and then make a decree saying soke other law democrats love is no longer going to be enforced and treated like it isn't even on the books.
Both Congress, and the American people have spoken loud and clear on this issue, they do not support it. If the president takes action against the will of Congress, and the American people, that would be an unacceptable betrayal.
No, that would be another "unacceptable betrayal', in apattern of betrayal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
