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.
My guess they will take a carry outside the home case in the next term and that should give us a ruling some time next June. Hopefully they will establish strict scrutiny for the 2nd ammendment like the other enumerated rights http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~dlevin...ny%20table.pdf
What judges support more than a weapons ban anyway?
I thought Judges were more conservative in general....
I made a thread about that, but someone said that it might be difficult to figure out if a law is unconstitutional or not, and that's why we have the Supreme Court.
Some areas that might be true, but she talks of complete handgun bans like they would be legal when Heller has already decided that not to be true. It is one thing to work in the gray area but that has already been decided.
Or maybe something saying all proposed laws must get some sort of legal review for legality prior to being brought to a vote, maybe some sort of sliding scale between 1-5 with 1 being completely legal and 5 being completely illegal. I don't know.
Ironically, a law like stated above would probably be unconstitutional.
Or maybe something saying all proposed laws must get some sort of legal review for legality prior to being brought to a vote, maybe some sort of sliding scale between 1-5 with 1 being completely legal and 5 being completely illegal. I don't know.
Ironically, a law like stated above would probably be unconstitutional.
Ok, for a '1' we pass the law. For a '5' we shoot them. Maybe a '3' would only warrant a flesh wound?
Some of you like to jump on others for saying they would never do that and yada yada. Well here is proof that this is exactly what some of them want to do. It is no shock to most of us, but it certainly validates are views. If they could do so, they would. Highly unlikely they could ever get it that far, but I cant imagine its impossible that they would ever try. They take any accident, incident, crisis to use to push their agenda.
Say they succeed with an "assault" weapons ban. Then, when that clearly doesnt put a damper on the killings, they will reach further after the next few mass killings.
This cancerous creature clearly doesnt care about Constitution or the rights of the American people.
She belongs in prison for the rest of her pathetic life.
just the beginning?
this just shows that sensible gun control laws is not the end of their gun control, in fact it has been in play since before 1934 and will continue until only they and the government will have the only firearms. then the rest of the Constitution will mean nothing then at all.
Either you have a "right to life" and thus the power to defend that life from attack - BY ANY WEAPON you choose.
OR
You only have a "privilege to live" and thus need permission from government to defend yourself.
Where do these public servants get the idea that they are the "masters" and can disarm the people?
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.
