My IQ is already too low. I don't need it lowered any further!Originally Posted by Straight Shooter
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
My IQ is already too low. I don't need it lowered any further!
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not.-Ben Franklin
there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for.-Samwise Gamgee
Senior Member
On days like this....its a RIOT to watch these Godless loons losing their minds...they are having a meltdown. Good times.
UPDATE: SCOTUS BLOG says no more decisions today...more tomorrow, and some next week Nine left in all.
Last edited by Straight Shooter; 06-23-22 at 10:10.
The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous rather than the cowards they really are.
Senior Member
Frankly I think these two things more important than the CCW ruling. These two part analysis and intermediate scrutiny that reports are gonna applying seems to be not allowed anymore. 55 would seem to any objective, rational person to make assault weapon bands unconstitutional. I think that is critical to actually get it written out in black and white. Because my guess is that the left next move is to NFA and tax the crap out of them. A black and white declaration that we have a right to them would help blunt those moves.Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller
at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed
meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not
apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S.,
at 582.
To look at the CCW ruling yes you have the right to carry outside of your house I don’t know what the wording is, but they can limit the crap out of it so that it is a useless right if they want to. Or maybe not I don’t know what the text actually says. Granted it’s a good thing that everybody should be able to get a license now, but the reality of what restrictions will be allowed will probably last another 10 years, and unfortunately past the lifetime of Clarence Thomas. It is good that Robert signed onto this version of this.
I know they’re not reading these allowed anymore, but are they all getting together at the Supreme Court to release them? If they are still getting together I have to assume that the Rowe case will be the last one, or at least in the last group, to be released. Because after that the lefties are going to lock down any travel and movement by these guys to come back to the court.
Last edited by FromMyColdDeadHand; 06-23-22 at 10:15.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
NY Gov implying they will not comply.
So what happens if they refuse to honor / follow the supreme Court decision?
Hold them in contempt to court?
Senior Member
Would it be too ironic if the federal government sent in the National Guard all opening up the schools down south when it came to enforcing the schooling rulings?
Who is a threat to our democracy now?
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
Releases are done for today. Since they added tomorrow, I am guessing this is when we will see the ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
I am part of that power which eternally wills evil, and eternally works good.
Site Sponsor
Now that they've established the precedent of having a "Shadow Justice-in-Waiting"... I could easily see Biden nominating eight more then Pelosi announcing "since we have confirmed Justices waiting for the bench might as well expand it."
What I'd like to see is a move to have a new president "pre-nominate" a full slate of nine upon taking office and having that "sideboard" pre-approved to fill vacancies until either withdrawn, seated or the end of that Congress--so every two years they submit a new slate for preclearance.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>YOU IDIOTS! I WROTE 1984 AS A WARNING, NOT A HOW-TO MANUAL!--Orwell's ghost
Psalms 109:8, 43:1
LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.
Senior Member
So the law was found to be unconstitutional. Does that mean it instantly is struck from the books? Is it now legal to carry in New York State? If there aren’t any other laws against it?
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
Sounds good, until you think about the fact that the nominees then would have targets on their backs for potentially years. That would be a hard burden to keep up with. Trump kind of did this with the list of judges, but he kept it open so that they couldn’t focus there I are on one single potential justice.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Site Sponsor
Sounds like someone is threatening an insurrection.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks