Bingo!...Getting rid of the collective mindset is absolutely paramount.Quote:
Originally Posted by Full-Auto
Printable View
Bingo!...Getting rid of the collective mindset is absolutely paramount.Quote:
Originally Posted by Full-Auto
That's the first time I've heard that, can you cite your source?Quote:
Originally Posted by biccat
The states most certainly do have to abide by the Bill of Rights, including but not limited to the 2nd Amendment.
Stevens' dissent--egad!
Stevens' dissent--egad!
Posted by David Hardy · 26 June 2008 02:20 PM
Comment on to previous post points out at p.2 of the Stevens dissent he refers to NFA and US v. Miller: "Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that..."
Same mistake the 9th Circus made years ago and had to issue a new opinion, since Miller was never convicted -- commentators noted this was pretty suggestive the court hadn't bothered to read Miller before citing it. First thing you look for in reading a case is what happened below, and what the Court do to that. Very first thing.
I'd add that at 41 he refers to:
"In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating the 'National Guard of the several States,' Perpich 496 U.S. at 341 and nn. 9-10."
Reading that part of Perpich v. Dodd: It says in 1901 President Roosevelt called for reforming the militia. He didn't create the National Guard (where would he have had the authority?)
On the next page Perpich says that Congress in 1903 enacted the Dick Act, which created the "National Guard of the Several States." Footnote 11 of that opinion, referring to creation of the Guard, begins: "The Act of January 21, 1903, 32 Stat. 775, provided in part..." So I guess he didn't read the Perpich case, either, let alone verify the dates and who did what.
And none of the four signing onto this opinion, and none of their clerks, saw these items?
:mad:
What a bunch of morons!
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...law/incorp.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by Full-Auto
That is a good primer on incorporation, I can find something else if you're interested.
I love how this clown thinks. According to Breyer, the First Amendment doesn't protect political speech during an election year, the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, the Eighth Amendment doesn't permit the states to execute child rapists, the Geneva and Hague Conventions give POW status to unlawful combatants, and they have the right of Habeas Corpus, even though no law says or implies that. What in the name of National Security do they teach in law schools? More importantly, what do the smoke in them?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostThere
That's not proof that States can ignore the Bill of Rights or the SCOTUS.Quote:
Originally Posted by biccat
I would like to see something more substantial though, if you have it.
The house of cards begins to fall...
http://www.nbc5.com/news/16729972/detail.htmlQuote:
Wilmette Suspends Local Handgun Ban
WILMETTE, Ill. -- Wilmette has suspended enforcement of its 19-year-old ordinance banning handgun possession in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that appears to invalidate such bans.
In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, a prohibition similar to those used in several major cities, including Chicago, and a handful of suburbs including Wilmette, Evanston, Winnetka and Oak Park.
"The Law Department and the Police Department have suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review by the Village Board," Wilmette village attorney Tim Frenzer said Thursday. "Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance."
Frenzer said questions remain about how directly the court's decision will impact local gun laws in Wilmette and other parts of the country. Washington is not a state, and each state has its own legal language governing the right to bear arms.
Don't get me wrong, I applaud the Court and give the finger to the dissenters in this case. However, if you are a member of GOA or the NRA, you can't prop your feet up yet. That was all I was trying to say. This ruling is very, very narrow in scope. You can tell the Court respected the Amici Curiae presented by the DoJ , and gave it a 20 foot birth. Basically the machine gun ban of '34 stands as does Miller. So citizens can only currently challenge laws that ban a weapon that is 'in common use'. By definition, weapons that are currently banned are not 'in common use'. That means, even though a complete ban on 'handguns' is not acceptable, a ban on the .460 Smith & Weapon Magnum is perfectly acceptable, because this high powered handgun is hardly in common use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking
When will these idiot gun controllers learn that a tool is a tool is a tool, but intent makes violence?
Oh, and to anyone who believes this decision doesn't apply to states proper, you are wrong. D.C. isn't a state, but SCOTUS case law applies to all SCOTUS cases, and to those cases in lesser courts. As a matter of fact, the soon-to-be-ex mayer of Chicago is going fetal around Chicago's handgun ban, which is soon to be challenged and overturned. This decision *does* apply to the states as equally as it applies to D.C. However, the scope of this decision is so narrow, that it does little to flesh out what exactly 'reasonable regulation' is. That is our next target while we have a worthy SCOTUS, to determine exactly what regulation is reasonable.
I have a simple idea. Any weapon of lesser power than a crew-served military weapon should be protected under the 2A. If one soldier can carry and operate it, then it a citizen has the right to carry that weapon. I doubt the Courts, States, and Brady Group will see it so simple.