> RoMunn wrote: > Considering that SCOTUS ruled last year on the DC case, I don't see them > ruling differently for reasons of federalism.
Ah, but you see SCOTUS specifically DID NOT rule on "incorporation" (that the 2nd trumps state's rights) in the Heller case which is why two appeals courts have deferred to them this year. THIS case will be the perfect vehicle for selective incorporation of one of the outstanding exclusions of the Bill of Rights (the 2nd) because it involves guns, individuals, city/state bans, and the 2nd. In other words if SCOTUS takes this case, and you can bet they will, they will be directly ruling on whether to incorporate the 2nd via the 14th and its Due Process clause. And then it gets complicated :) If SCOTUS does rule for incorporation of the 2nd, next will be an open question of interpretation of the "reasonableness" standard. In other words, given that federal law now trumps state law when, where, and how does it trump state law? Again, Judge Easterbrook of the 7th circuit appeals court - one of the most conservative judges in the land - JUST WROTE in his ruling: “Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon.” Trust me brutha. Gays, guns, and God are all coming to the Supreme Court and Souter has thrown down the gauntlet: this institution sucks and I quit. What happens in the next few years will prove him right or wron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:298128 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
