Another Unconstitutional Law Falls

[Billy_Kinetta]

Keep it up.

U.S. judge strikes down D.C. concealed-carry gun law as probably unconstitutional

 

[JakeStarkey]

It does not fall at all.

The decision will go up the chain.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It does not fall at all.

The decision will go up the chain.

Of course it did, although the idiot DC Government may indeed take it up the path.

A "good reason" is an arbitrary decision and unconstitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It does not fall at all.

The decision will go up the chain.

Of course it did, although the idiot DC Government may indeed take it up the path. A "good reason" is an arbitrary decision and unconstitutional.

Of course it did not. The arbitrary decision must go up the chain.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It does not fall at all.

The decision will go up the chain.

Of course it did, although the idiot DC Government may indeed take it up the path. A "good reason" is an arbitrary decision and unconstitutional.

Of course it did not. The arbitrary decision must go up the chain.

Perhaps, but it is still unconstitutional.

Time to carve out the Federal enclave and cede the rest of Washington back to Maryland. Home Rule is another dismal Democrat failure

 

[JakeStarkey]

It does not fall at all.

The decision will go up the chain.

Of course it did, although the idiot DC Government may indeed take it up the path. A "good reason" is an arbitrary decision and unconstitutional.

Of course it did not. The arbitrary decision must go up the chain.

Perhaps, but it is still unconstitutional.

Time to carve out the Federal enclave and cede the rest of Washington back to Maryland. Home Rule is another dismal Democrat failure

According to you and the judge, which will to be rule on up the Chain.

 

[hadit]

It does not fall at all.

The decision will go up the chain.

Of course it did, although the idiot DC Government may indeed take it up the path. A "good reason" is an arbitrary decision and unconstitutional.

Of course it did not. The arbitrary decision must go up the chain.

Perhaps, but it is still unconstitutional.

Time to carve out the Federal enclave and cede the rest of Washington back to Maryland. Home Rule is another dismal Democrat failure

According to you and the judge, which will to be rule on up the Chain.

Sure it goes up the chain, but a lower court ruling tends to tilt the scales. This is likely on its way out. And, of course, higher courts can simply let the ruling stand as is. Every case does not make its way to the SC.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Keep it up.

U.S. judge strikes down D.C. concealed-carry gun law as probably unconstitutional

yup another loss for the anti rights crowd

 

[JakeStarkey]

It does not fall at all.

The decision will go up the chain.

Of course it did, although the idiot DC Government may indeed take it up the path. A "good reason" is an arbitrary decision and unconstitutional.

Of course it did not. The arbitrary decision must go up the chain.

Perhaps, but it is still unconstitutional.

Time to carve out the Federal enclave and cede the rest of Washington back to Maryland. Home Rule is another dismal Democrat failure

According to you and the judge, which will to be rule on up the Chain.

Sure it goes up the chain, but a lower court ruling tends to tilt the scales. This is likely on its way out. And, of course, higher courts can simply let the ruling stand as is. Every case does not make its way to the SC.

Not at all. The other courts must rule. If the appellate court let's it stand, the ruling can be appealed higher.

 

[RoccoR]

Billy_Kinetta, et al,

This is no big deal.

Keep it up.

U.S. judge strikes down D.C. concealed-carry gun law as probably unconstitutional

(COMMENT)

If we were operating under the reasonable man concept, all you would have to do is cite the Metro PD Crime Statistics.

​

The question here is not about the justifiable "reason" for the permit, but rather, if the government can place reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment Right.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[hadit]

Of course it did, although the idiot DC Government may indeed take it up the path. A "good reason" is an arbitrary decision and unconstitutional.

Of course it did not. The arbitrary decision must go up the chain.

Perhaps, but it is still unconstitutional.

Time to carve out the Federal enclave and cede the rest of Washington back to Maryland. Home Rule is another dismal Democrat failure

According to you and the judge, which will to be rule on up the Chain.

Sure it goes up the chain, but a lower court ruling tends to tilt the scales. This is likely on its way out. And, of course, higher courts can simply let the ruling stand as is. Every case does not make its way to the SC.

Not at all. The other courts must rule. If the appellate court let's it stand, the ruling can be appealed higher.

We are heading in the right direction on gun control.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Of course it did, although the idiot DC Government may indeed take it up the path. A "good reason" is an arbitrary decision and unconstitutional.

Of course it did not. The arbitrary decision must go up the chain.

Perhaps, but it is still unconstitutional.

Time to carve out the Federal enclave and cede the rest of Washington back to Maryland. Home Rule is another dismal Democrat failure

According to you and the judge, which will to be rule on up the Chain.

Sure it goes up the chain, but a lower court ruling tends to tilt the scales. This is likely on its way out. And, of course, higher courts can simply let the ruling stand as is. Every case does not make its way to the SC.

Not at all. The other courts must rule. If the appellate court let's it stand, the ruling can be appealed higher.

As we just saw in a recent case , the higher court can be a bunch of pussies and not rule.

and OF COURSE the anti gun law here just lost a major challenge, it is unlikely that the government will win on appeal, and you know that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it did not. The arbitrary decision must go up the chain.

Perhaps, but it is still unconstitutional.

Time to carve out the Federal enclave and cede the rest of Washington back to Maryland. Home Rule is another dismal Democrat failure

According to you and the judge, which will to be rule on up the Chain.

Sure it goes up the chain, but a lower court ruling tends to tilt the scales. This is likely on its way out. And, of course, higher courts can simply let the ruling stand as is. Every case does not make its way to the SC.

Not at all. The other courts must rule. If the appellate court let's it stand, the ruling can be appealed higher.

As we just saw in a recent case , the higher court can be a bunch of pussies and not rule.

and OF COURSE the anti gun law here just lost a major challenge, it is unlikely that the government will win on appeal, and you know that.

You know nothing of the sort. With Scalia dead, the new appointment will be anti-gun.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Perhaps, but it is still unconstitutional.

Time to carve out the Federal enclave and cede the rest of Washington back to Maryland. Home Rule is another dismal Democrat failure

According to you and the judge, which will to be rule on up the Chain.

Sure it goes up the chain, but a lower court ruling tends to tilt the scales. This is likely on its way out. And, of course, higher courts can simply let the ruling stand as is. Every case does not make its way to the SC.

Not at all. The other courts must rule. If the appellate court let's it stand, the ruling can be appealed higher.

As we just saw in a recent case , the higher court can be a bunch of pussies and not rule.

and OF COURSE the anti gun law here just lost a major challenge, it is unlikely that the government will win on appeal, and you know that.

You know nothing of the sort. With Scalia dead, the new appointment will be anti-gun.

You of course don't know that the new appointee will be anti gun. You HOPE they will be. Myself , I don't care if they are anti gun. I care that they are PRO Constitutions. Which CLEARLY forbids restrictions on gun ownership.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I hope it will be someone like Kennedy.

Since you don't understand the Constitution, I am not very concerned with your utterances.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I hope it will be someone like Kennedy.

Since you don't understand the Constitution, I am not very concerned with your utterances.

I don't understand the COTUS? You are the one who doesn't seem to understand that NO restrictions means just that.

Now personally I think SCOTUS fucked up when they incorporated the COTUS, I don't think the founding fathers ever had any intention of making the first or second amendment apply to state or local governments, BUT that ship has sailed and as such precedent is set and laws which prohibit gun ownership are unconstitutional.

After reading some of your other posts, I'm actually surprised that this is a topic you are so unreasonable about, it's QUITE clear that the 2nd protects gun ownership and that SCOTUS has set the precedent over and over.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You make my point. The first and second amendments were in the hands of the state because they were restrictions on the federal, not state, governments. Heller incorporated the states, so that the federal government was the interpreter and protector of them.

I am not unreasonable, and I agree with your last paragraph.

But the judge's decision on constitutionality or lack thereof means nothing until the appellate courts sign off.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You make my point. The first and second amendments were in the hands of the state because they were restrictions on the federal, not state, governments. Heller incorporated the states, so that the federal government was the interpreter and protector of them.

I am not unreasonable, and I agree with your last paragraph.

But the judge's decision on constitutionality or lack thereof means nothing until the appellate courts sign off.

You're incorrect. The judge's ruling means EVERYTHING unless it is appealed and the appellate court disagrees.

That's how it works. That's why normally in such cases when it's obvious that the losing party is going to appeal the presiding judge will include a stay in their ruling.

For example.

"I rule that the government CAN require ID to vote , but am issuing a stay on requiring ID until the appellate court can rule"

In this particular case, I don't see a stay, which means effective immediately the law in DC is Unconstitutional unless and until a higher court reverses the lower court's ruling.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You still don't get it. The ruling, when not if appealed, becomes subject to the next level.

We have one judicial opinion, nothing more.

Assume the ruling is stayed unless you can prove it is not.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You still don't get it. The ruling, when not if appealed, becomes subject to the next level.

We have one judicial opinion, nothing ore.

YOU aren't getting it. That judicial opinion as you call it is law unless and until appealed.

And it has to work that way. What if it took a year to get into appeals court. Are you saying that in the intervening year's time that DC could just continue arresting people for a crime that a judge has ruled unconstitutional? Come on man, that's not even logical.