tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post1996246336239569322..comments2023-12-23T16:59:19.185+00:00Comments on Western Rifle Shooters Association: 2A Litigation Update -- The Case Against the City of ChicagoUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-54331104094449412552009-10-02T05:09:02.800+01:002009-10-02T05:09:02.800+01:00Sofa:
You mean "continue to nullify 2A"...Sofa:<br /><br />You mean "<i>continue</i> to nullify 2A", didn't you?<br /><br />Doubters should re-read Section III at pp. 54-56 of <a href="www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf" rel="nofollow">Heller</a>. Scalia, writing for the majority, was just making shit up -- whether "to get the fifth vote" or just to be the statist pig that he is doesn't really matter.<br /><br />Anyone looking to these 8 turds (Thomas is OK) for anything freedom-related is freaking delusional.<br /><br />"Shall not be infringed" is the precise language.<br /><br />Does the statute at issue infringe upon a citizen's RKBA?<br /><br />There endeth the intellectually-honest analysis. End of story.<br /><br />Y'all want to mentally masturbate with the Robed Elite and their sycophants -- go right ahead.<br /><br />Me? I am going to be an American.Concerned Americanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05257709418390025182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-82189060718873097782009-10-02T03:24:01.365+01:002009-10-02T03:24:01.365+01:00When the Supremes nullify 2A -
Is that cause for ...When the Supremes nullify 2A - <br />Is that cause for more court cases, etc?<br /><br />Are they inalienable rights?<br /><br />Or are we now begging the crown,<br />errr - a branch of gov't ?sofahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05980976047602693896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-70140933220858140342009-10-02T02:52:34.089+01:002009-10-02T02:52:34.089+01:00David:
You said:
...It's not the Supreme Cou...David:<br /><br />You said:<br /><br /><b>...It's not the Supreme Court's job to say in one case the precise scope of a fundamental right. That just doesn't happen in Constitutional jurisprudence...</b><br /><br />I am intimately familiar with how so-called "Constitutional jurisprudence" operates.<br /><br />Remember this classic from Griswold:<br /><br /><i>...The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance....</i> <br /><br />It's known colloquially as the "we can make up whatever shit we want to reach the desired result, for we are the robed elite" clause.<br /><br />Remember the intellectual heights of <a href="http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Korematsu/" rel="nofollow">Korematsu</a>?<br /><br /><i>...It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers -- and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that term implies -- we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders -- as inevitably it must -- determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot -- by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight -- now say that at that time these actions were unjustified...</i><br /><br />Remember <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZS.html" rel="nofollow">Hamdi</a>?<br /><br />Remember the plethora of judge-made "warrantless search" exceptions to the Fourth Amendment?<br /><br />Remember <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=McConnell%20V%27s%20Federal%20Election%20Commission&url=/supct/html/02-1674.ZS.html" rel="nofollow">McConnell</a>?<br /><br />Balls on "constitutional jurisprudence" and balls to the Supremes.<br /><br />Knowing, as you acknowledge, that a pro-incorporation decision would invalidate long-standing gun laws in major metroplitan areas, do you really expect a majority of the Supremes to have the intellectual honesty to treat the 2A as they have other enumerated rights in the BoR?<br /><br />Really?Concerned Americanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05257709418390025182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-75431795869247235212009-10-02T01:03:04.998+01:002009-10-02T01:03:04.998+01:00Since SCOTUS, as the judiciary, is limited by the ...Since SCOTUS, as the judiciary, is limited by the Constitution to interpreting that laws are in compliance with constitutional limitations, especially concerning the Bill of Rights, this whole dog and pony show is an illegal power grab by the SCOTUS and their accomplices. <br /> Nowhere does the constitution or article 2 give them the right to interpret the only laws the restrict their power and authority.. not congress nor the executive can give them this authority.. what would be the point of a Constitution ? Ponder that thought..<br />..the founders werent stupid, we are, though.spitnyrihttp://spitnyri.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-20115154863755071992009-10-01T22:26:04.322+01:002009-10-01T22:26:04.322+01:00In a word: no. In more than one word: you've a...In a word: no. In more than one word: you've asked a straw-man question. It's not the Supreme Court's job to say in one case the precise scope of a fundamental right. That just doesn't happen in Constitutional jurisprudence. Rather, a win in this case opens up the ability for us to develop a bunch of subsequent wins at the state and federal level, each of which will define some aspect of the 2A. Most of those won't ever make it to the Supreme Court level for review, but they'll be binding law just the same. For example: you want to have a definitive ruling that a California-style "assault weapons" ban is unconstitutional? Then first you need a win in this case to let us bring that suit against California. Same with specific suits about shall-issue concealed carry, all the way to suppressors and the rest. They're in the pipeline, but unless we get a win in this case, all those other cases won't go anywhere. And the Justices and their clerks know very well that flood of civil-rights cases is exactly what's coming if they rule the right way in this case.Davidwhitewolfhttp://www.softgreenglow.com/wpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-6196841012494669502009-10-01T16:19:13.528+01:002009-10-01T16:19:13.528+01:00I wonder if the NRA will try to hog the credit for...I wonder if the NRA will try to hog the credit for this one?ebd10noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-68846469163214548322009-10-01T10:34:41.287+01:002009-10-01T10:34:41.287+01:00The supreme court does not secure our rights, we d...The supreme court does not secure our rights, we do.Larrynoreply@blogger.com