U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 05:19 AM
 
37,934 posts, read 16,406,514 times
Reputation: 8595

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah View Post
It has to be brought to them......and the USSC gets to decide which cases it will hear.
Even in the ruling cited they did define certain things. They did NOT declare the 2nd amendment, "shall NOT be INFRINGED". They ALLOWED "infringements".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 05:31 AM
 
37,934 posts, read 16,406,514 times
Reputation: 8595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Well that's the problem. For whatever reason cases are brought to the SCOTUS, or they refuse to hear them. States like NY, CA, NJ, MA, CT, RI, HI, IL, VT, and many others have passed clearly unconstitutional laws that stand due to this fact.
" For whatever reason cases are brought to the SCOTUS, or they refuse to hear them."

That is because most knew it was a waste of time with clinton and obama judges in the majority. (this is why the leaft goes to the 9th circuit court so many times)

I foresee when Trump gets more judges we will see a LANDSLIDE of filings challenging the Constitutionality of these gun laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:36 AM
 
37,934 posts, read 16,406,514 times
Reputation: 8595
Quote:
Originally Posted by GearHeadDave View Post
True in 2019. Will it be true in 2069, 50 years from now? My guess is no.

When you look at the demographics of those that advocate for more gun ownership control versus those protecting gun rights, there is a big differential based on age, income and education. The gun culture that we have today is largely a vestige of our frontier days.

https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-co...ntrol-2011.pdf

Change is coming - it's just a matter of time, and the firearms industry knows it. It's why they are desperately working to control legislators and public discourse at every level. Very similar to the tobacco industry, who had to scramble to adjust to the fact that tobacco use was headed for a precipitous decline.
"there is a big differential based on age, income and education"

I disagree. IMO, it is WHERE YOU LIVE, Cities and their surrounding suburbs, ANTI-gun, or further out FOR guns
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:37 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
10,076 posts, read 5,611,940 times
Reputation: 8512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
Even in the ruling cited they did define certain things. They did NOT declare the 2nd amendment, "shall NOT be INFRINGED". They ALLOWED "infringements".

Well, there is also another concept to the USSC, such as around the time of Incorporation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorp...Bill_of_Rights


Incorporation didn't happen all at once but rather when a case came around that was "Ripe" to decide the issue on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:47 AM
 
Location: Long Island
33,771 posts, read 14,227,734 times
Reputation: 7255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
" For whatever reason cases are brought to the SCOTUS, or they refuse to hear them."

That is because most knew it was a waste of time with clinton and obama judges in the majority. (this is why the leaft goes to the 9th circuit court so many times)

I foresee when Trump gets more judges we will see a LANDSLIDE of filings challenging the Constitutionality of these gun laws.
Complete nonsense, the court has leaned right for decades but you had to come up with some reason, its always the judges when you don't like the decision.


The supreme court will rule on the prohibition of transportation of licensed handguns guns outside of NYC in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. This is the first 2nd amendment case the SC took in nearly ten years so good luck with your landslide pipe dream, they have no interest in taking these cases. I think NYC will lose that case by the way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:53 AM
 
Location: USA
18,996 posts, read 9,253,890 times
Reputation: 14305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Complete nonsense, the court has leaned right for decades but you had to come up with some reason, its always the judges when you don't like the decision.
You are delusional. How has the court leaned right for decades? It was 4 - 4 and a swing vote with Kennedy. How did the ILLEGAL Obamacare get passed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:07 AM
 
Location: Long Island
33,771 posts, read 14,227,734 times
Reputation: 7255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
You are delusional. How has the court leaned right for decades? It was 4 - 4 and a swing vote with Kennedy. How did the ILLEGAL Obamacare get passed?
You can't determine the rulings of SCOTUS on one ruling but if you are I would say Citizens United would be the one along with Hobby Lobby and Walmart. The court already leaned right now even more so.


The court also just ruled against the ACA when the 2017 Tax Reform bill took away the penalty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:16 AM
 
Location: USA
18,996 posts, read 9,253,890 times
Reputation: 14305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
You can't determine the rulings of SCOTUS on one ruling but if you are I would say Citizens United would be the one along with Hobby Lobby and Walmart. The court already leaned right now even more so.


The court also just ruled against the ACA when the 2017 Tax Reform bill took away the penalty.
So which court voted for Gay "marriage"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:46 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,388 posts, read 34,311,211 times
Reputation: 14510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
Even in the ruling cited they did define certain things. They did NOT declare the 2nd amendment, "shall NOT be INFRINGED". They ALLOWED "infringements".
Then it is unconstitutional, according to our rights do not come from anyone to give or take.
Putting a boot on our throats, is an infringement on life & liberty. Treat you like their property and you understand why the SLAVES didn't have AR-10's & 15's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:16 AM
 
10,137 posts, read 4,747,795 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
You say have now but when there is a home invasion you are going to call a man in a blue suit to come give those jerks a swat team ar15 enema
And beg for your life in the 15-20 minutes it takes the police to arrive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top