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.
Who says that the liberals don't want to take away guns? Now we have a retired Supreme Court Justice calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, calling it "a relic of the 18th Century".
The wording in that last sentence was carefully not necessarily approval.
Why are you making up excuses? "In common use at the time" means exactly what it says. Maybe this excerpt from Heller vs DC can clarify things a little better:
Quote:
"Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that can not be hand carried--It's to keep and 'bear' so it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."-- "The 2nd Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."--- Antonin Scalia (Heller vs DC) www.law.cornell.edu/suplt
Semi automatic firearms both handguns and rifles along with their magazines are ubiquitous and are indeed in "common use at the time". They also "constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding".
Heller was fairly narrow basically allowing a gun for self defense, requiring
a gun be disassembled went to far. Scalia was one of the most conservative justices and he didn’t seem to feel the same way regarding restrictions.
If they actually ruled by the text of the 2nd, it shouldn't have had one dissenting voice. That is what is so scary! Our rights are in the hands of some 9 people with political opinions. Not on my life!
I'll stick with the facts of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and John Adams... the people that wrote it.
If they actually ruled by the text of the 2nd, it shouldn't have had one dissenting voice. That is what is so scary! Our rights are in the hands of some 9 people with political opinions. Not on my life!
I'll stick with the facts of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and John Adams... the people that wrote it.
I agree 100%
I was for Ted Cruz or Ben Carson in the primaries, but it was not to be.
That's the main reason why I voted for Trump to change the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court. Well not the only reason, I could never vote for that criminal pathological lying b**ch or any Democrat for that matter.
We also owe a debt of gratitude to Mitch McConnell for delaying many of the judicial nominees until a new president was elected.
Ginsburg and Kennedy will probably be the next to go during Trump's first term. Hopefully Ginsburg will be the next. They're both in their 80's. Ginsburg is 85 and Kennedy is 81.
Quote:
Donald Trump Set a Record for Confirming Federal Judges | Time
time.com/5066679/donald-trump-federal-judges-record
President Trump Appointed Four Times as Many Federal Appeals Judges as Obama in His First Year
Trump appointing judges at rapid pace - Los Angeles Times Trump appointing judges at rapid pace - Los Angeles Times
Jan 18, 2018 · One year into his presidency, Donald Trump is among the most successful presidents when it comes to appointing federal judges.
Trump Outdoes Obama In Federal Judge Appointments http://www.newsweek.com/trump...fede...ntments-786239
President Donald Trump, who likes to show he is more successful than former president Barack Obama, has outdone his predecessor in an area: appointing federal judges. Trump ranks sixth of 19 presidents filling the highest number of judgeships at the Supreme, appellate and District Court levels in ...
President-elect Donald Trump could soon make over 100 ... www.cbsnews.com/news/president-elect-donald...
President-elect Donald Trump will likely have the chance to make over 100 judicial appointments, ... federal and district courts ... Trump will appoint judges who ...
Trump Nominates Ten Conservatives to be Federal Judges ... Trump administration hollows out EPA science integrity board - Breitbart...
President Donald Trump unveiled a slate of ten judicial nominees to the federal courts on Monday who are mainstream conservatives, taking the next step to fulfill his campaign promise after his successful appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. - federal judges | Big Government
Trump Is Rapidly Reshaping the Judiciary. Here’s How. - The ... www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/us/politics/trump...
Nov 10, 2017 · Republican lawyers and lawmakers are working together to install conservative judges on the influential federal appeals courts at a clip not seen in decades.
That quote was from the SCOTUS decision posted from the link you provided from Cornell Law School, evidently you have no response. Scalia wrote the majority opinion, if you cant get agreement from him good luck with the movement to remove gun restrictions.
Actually what you posted is not from the majority opinion, it's from the syllabus which I noted in my link. (I linked to the syllabus for the singular point that the individual right holding was the primary holding of the decision).
The summary you quoted (which was not written by Scalia or any memeber of the Court) does not in any manner negate anything I said.
It probably wouldn't make much difference if you quoted from the opinion, it is a sure thing that you would have dropped the footnote to that often quoted by liberals paragraph . . . which in the real legal world, has been the cause of exactly those kinds of challenges.
Footnote 26 says, "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."
By declaring those restrictions as only "presumptively lawful", SCOTUS has made possible the legal arguments that call that presumption into question. Lower federal courts are now in the process of reassessing the constitutionality of many "unquestionable" gun laws that come before them because of Heller, even "long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons":
"As the Government concedes, Heller’s statement regarding the presumptive validity of felon gun dispossession statutes does not foreclose Barton’s as-applied challenge. By describing the felon disarmament ban as “presumptively” lawful, the Supreme Court implied that the presumption may be rebutted."
U.S. v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011) (58kb pdf) (internal citation removed)
Of course felon disablement of gun rights were/are sustained because they are founded on legitimate exercises of government authority which have been upheld many times using a wide range of legal reasoning under constitutional and common law.
Now, back to my point way back when, gun control laws that were upheld by citing the "collective right" interpreation of the 2nd Amendment and reasoned upon the theories that the 2nd does not secure an individual right but only guarantees the right of states to organize its own militias, WILL BE STRUCK DOWN.
Heller ripped the support out from under thousands of federal, state and local gun control laws by invalidating the legal reasoning of the hundreds of court decisions that sustained them.
Any elitist who wants to legalize 10s millions of illegal aliens (of which every aforementioned con artist is backing), is no conservative. Never have been, never will be.
Yep. They may be Republicans, but they are not conservatives. Not to mention that any claims to being a conservatives take a serious, serious hit if you supported Hillary Clinton becoming president in 2016. Her election would've ushered in a generation of leftist rulings on the Supreme Court and erased decades of work trying to secure a Court majority intent on interpreting the Constitution as the framers intended.
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.
