Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Slow down there mister... Sure, if the State determines that I (as an individual) deserve some scrutiny that is one thing. We are talking about a carte' blanche' Statewide, universal registration which flies in the face (the whole point) of the 2nd.Excuse me here... I have the Constitution on my side NOT you! Again, explain to me how my legally purchased and owned AR can be criminalized if I do not register it with the state... Btw, what insults... regardless, insults aren't germane to this conversation any way... treat them like redundant adj. or adv.'s don't get but hurt by them... the issues are what win arguments and upon which policy is crafted.. hopefully. lolWhat about being required to register your AR or criminalizing it within state lines? The whole pivotal point of the 2nd, in my mind & that of the framers, was a check against Gov. overreach / tyranny... How does this get explained away by your ilk...
As long as your bunch keeps with the insults and refuses to enter into meaningful discussion don't expect anyone to take you seriously. You just keep digging the hole deeper. When you are already in a hole, stop digging.
No you don't have the constitution on your side if the state decides that you shouldn't have your AR. The State has the constitution on IT's side since the constitution gives it the right to determine what is and what is not the acceptable norm for legal firearms. You are taking just one sentence from the constitution and disregarding the rest to suit your own whims. Just because you legally purchased the AR today doesn't mean that it will still be a legal private firearm later on. And the State can use Due Process to determine that. And Due Process is right out of the Constitution. You know, the part where you totally ignore. But the Supreme Court recognizes the 14th Amendment Section 1 pertaining to firearms and has consistently ruled in it's favor.
Claiming that the Constitution is on your side when it clearly isn't doesn't make it so. No matter how many times you keep repeating it. In order to say you are constitutional, you have to follow ALL of the Constitution and not just the parts that trip yer trigger.
The state has the right to require all firearms to be registered if it's done using due process of the law. It's the Freds that do not have that right. Some states require it and others don't. You don't like the way your state does things move to one that does itlike you want it to. Simple as that.
+Yep....Remember in November, any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.
We have a chance to have real Justices on the Court if Kennedy retires and ginsburg does whatever she is going to do in the next 6 years.......we may also need to replace Thomas......and to do that we need to hold the Senate, and holding the House would make sure the morons in the Senate aren't intimidated into not approving Trump's nominees...
The Republicans will maintain control of the House, pick up seats in the Senate and Trump will still be President. The Moon Bats will be besides themselves. Probably more howling at the sky. Maybe a little more marching around in their pink pussy hats. Lots of those sweet Liberal tears.
Unless the Republicans go wobbly on us our Second Amendment rights hopefully will not be infringed upon anymore for awhile.
We need the Supreme Court to put an end to the states doing it.
There are about 40 Republican Seats up for grabs this year. Due to the way that California does things, they have already lost 4 of those seats since no Republicans will be running in the runnoffs there. There are a few Dems that are very, very popular that could bounce Republicans. In Colorado, if our current Governor decides to run (he term limits) say good by to the Republican Tipton. But I have a feeling they are saving him for the Senate in 2020 to go against Gardner who the Guv would win easily. It's like that in many places across the nation. It's not the shoein that you paint. The second the Republican Voters get complacent then the Dems will win. Dems already picked up 6 of the 24 needed. That means they need 19 more to gain control. It's doable if Republicans aren't real careful and vigil.
Don't be delusional. The party in [power usually loses some seats during the midterms. Just look at what happen to that asshole Obama in 2010. Devestating, wasn't it? The same with Slick Willy in 1994. However, there will not be a big shift this year. No Blue wave that you Moon Bats are hoping for. Maybe a few seats lost but not enough to change the majority for the Republicans.
Meanwhile the filthy Democrats have too many Senate seats to defend, That is why the Republicans will pick up some of them, especially in the states that went for Trump in 2016.
On top of that Trump is still President.
It must suck to be a Moon Bat nowadays.
Newsflash: SFBs, I don't want the REps to lose the Senate. I do see them losing the House though and in 2020 there is a good possibility that they could lose the Presidency. You NEVER want all three in the hands of one party. The biggest messes are from when one party or the other controls all three. The next worst mess is when one party controls both the House and the Senate and the President is of the other Party. It's better to have one party hold the House while the other Party hold the Senate. The way to get two mules to pull together who constantly fight each other is to harness them together so they have no choice but to work it out.
But I don't expect your little pea brain to understand that.
You know, I agree with you.....after Trump appoints 3 more Justices to the Supreme Court and fills all the vacancies in the lower courts...... Then, after Trump, I might be able to do a little rebellion and vote Libertarian or another party....Right now it is too important to get Trump to fill those Judicial vacancies and replace ginsburg and kennedy at a minimum, hopefully breyer and maybe replace Thomas if he decides to retire...
+The Republicans will maintain control of the House, pick up seats in the Senate and Trump will still be President. The Moon Bats will be besides themselves. Probably more howling at the sky. Maybe a little more marching around in their pink pussy hats. Lots of those sweet Liberal tears.
Unless the Republicans go wobbly on us our Second Amendment rights hopefully will not be infringed upon anymore for awhile.
We need the Supreme Court to put an end to the states doing it.
There are about 40 Republican Seats up for grabs this year. Due to the way that California does things, they have already lost 4 of those seats since no Republicans will be running in the runnoffs there. There are a few Dems that are very, very popular that could bounce Republicans. In Colorado, if our current Governor decides to run (he term limits) say good by to the Republican Tipton. But I have a feeling they are saving him for the Senate in 2020 to go against Gardner who the Guv would win easily. It's like that in many places across the nation. It's not the shoein that you paint. The second the Republican Voters get complacent then the Dems will win. Dems already picked up 6 of the 24 needed. That means they need 19 more to gain control. It's doable if Republicans aren't real careful and vigil.
Don't be delusional. The party in [power usually loses some seats during the midterms. Just look at what happen to that asshole Obama in 2010. Devestating, wasn't it? The same with Slick Willy in 1994. However, there will not be a big shift this year. No Blue wave that you Moon Bats are hoping for. Maybe a few seats lost but not enough to change the majority for the Republicans.
Meanwhile the filthy Democrats have too many Senate seats to defend, That is why the Republicans will pick up some of them, especially in the states that went for Trump in 2016.
On top of that Trump is still President.
It must suck to be a Moon Bat nowadays.
Newsflash: SFBs, I don't want the REps to lose the Senate. I do see them losing the House though and in 2020 there is a good possibility that they could lose the Presidency. You NEVER want all three in the hands of one party. The biggest messes are from when one party or the other controls all three. The next worst mess is when one party controls both the House and the Senate and the President is of the other Party. It's better to have one party hold the House while the other Party hold the Senate. The way to get two mules to pull together who constantly fight each other is to harness them together so they have no choice but to work it out.
But I don't expect your little pea brain to understand that.
You know, I agree with you.....after Trump appoints 3 more Justices to the Supreme Court and fills all the vacancies in the lower courts...... Then, after Trump, I might be able to do a little rebellion and vote Libertarian or another party....Right now it is too important to get Trump to fill those Judicial vacancies and replace ginsburg and kennedy at a minimum, hopefully breyer and maybe replace Thomas if he decides to retire...
There you go being a SFBs again. It won't matter if he does replace 3 more Justices. The Justices can only rule on the Constitution only. If it's not in the Constitution then they can't rule on it. The only way to get a different ruling is for Congress to change the Constitution. Are you aware of how many times the Supreme Court has tried to shame Congress into doing their damned jobs? It happens all the time. You are blaming the wrong branch while voting for the same pieces of Garbage in Congress.
Slow down there mister... Sure, if the State determines that I (as an individual) deserve some scrutiny that is one thing. We are talking about a carte' blanche' Statewide, universal registration which flies in the face (the whole point) of the 2nd.Excuse me here... I have the Constitution on my side NOT you! Again, explain to me how my legally purchased and owned AR can be criminalized if I do not register it with the state... Btw, what insults... regardless, insults aren't germane to this conversation any way... treat them like redundant adj. or adv.'s don't get but hurt by them... the issues are what win arguments and upon which policy is crafted.. hopefully. lolAs long as your bunch keeps with the insults and refuses to enter into meaningful discussion don't expect anyone to take you seriously. You just keep digging the hole deeper. When you are already in a hole, stop digging.
No you don't have the constitution on your side if the state decides that you shouldn't have your AR. The State has the constitution on IT's side since the constitution gives it the right to determine what is and what is not the acceptable norm for legal firearms. You are taking just one sentence from the constitution and disregarding the rest to suit your own whims. Just because you legally purchased the AR today doesn't mean that it will still be a legal private firearm later on. And the State can use Due Process to determine that. And Due Process is right out of the Constitution. You know, the part where you totally ignore. But the Supreme Court recognizes the 14th Amendment Section 1 pertaining to firearms and has consistently ruled in it's favor.
Claiming that the Constitution is on your side when it clearly isn't doesn't make it so. No matter how many times you keep repeating it. In order to say you are constitutional, you have to follow ALL of the Constitution and not just the parts that trip yer trigger.
The state has the right to require all firearms to be registered if it's done using due process of the law. It's the Freds that do not have that right. Some states require it and others don't. You don't like the way your state does things move to one that does itlike you want it to. Simple as that.
Wrong.....Haynes v United States ruled that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns, because it violates their Right against self incrimination....so if they don't have to register their illegal guns, law abiding citizens for damn sure don't have to register their legal guns....
+There are about 40 Republican Seats up for grabs this year. Due to the way that California does things, they have already lost 4 of those seats since no Republicans will be running in the runnoffs there. There are a few Dems that are very, very popular that could bounce Republicans. In Colorado, if our current Governor decides to run (he term limits) say good by to the Republican Tipton. But I have a feeling they are saving him for the Senate in 2020 to go against Gardner who the Guv would win easily. It's like that in many places across the nation. It's not the shoein that you paint. The second the Republican Voters get complacent then the Dems will win. Dems already picked up 6 of the 24 needed. That means they need 19 more to gain control. It's doable if Republicans aren't real careful and vigil.
Don't be delusional. The party in [power usually loses some seats during the midterms. Just look at what happen to that asshole Obama in 2010. Devestating, wasn't it? The same with Slick Willy in 1994. However, there will not be a big shift this year. No Blue wave that you Moon Bats are hoping for. Maybe a few seats lost but not enough to change the majority for the Republicans.
Meanwhile the filthy Democrats have too many Senate seats to defend, That is why the Republicans will pick up some of them, especially in the states that went for Trump in 2016.
On top of that Trump is still President.
It must suck to be a Moon Bat nowadays.
Newsflash: SFBs, I don't want the REps to lose the Senate. I do see them losing the House though and in 2020 there is a good possibility that they could lose the Presidency. You NEVER want all three in the hands of one party. The biggest messes are from when one party or the other controls all three. The next worst mess is when one party controls both the House and the Senate and the President is of the other Party. It's better to have one party hold the House while the other Party hold the Senate. The way to get two mules to pull together who constantly fight each other is to harness them together so they have no choice but to work it out.
But I don't expect your little pea brain to understand that.
You know, I agree with you.....after Trump appoints 3 more Justices to the Supreme Court and fills all the vacancies in the lower courts...... Then, after Trump, I might be able to do a little rebellion and vote Libertarian or another party....Right now it is too important to get Trump to fill those Judicial vacancies and replace ginsburg and kennedy at a minimum, hopefully breyer and maybe replace Thomas if he decides to retire...
There you go being a SFBs again. It won't matter if he does replace 3 more Justices. The Justices can only rule on the Constitution only. If it's not in the Constitution then they can't rule on it. The only way to get a different ruling is for Congress to change the Constitution. Are you aware of how many times the Supreme Court has tried to shame Congress into doing their damned jobs? It happens all the time. You are blaming the wrong branch while voting for the same pieces of Garbage in Congress.
Wrong.....you don't understand...you have the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuits making up gun laws and ignoring Heller, Caetano, Miller, McDonald......and because we have 4 left wing, anti gun justices and crazy Kennedy....the Court has not smacked them down for their rulings in Massachusetts, Deerfield, Highland park and California as well as New York....... they have already ruled on guns..... those courts of appeals are ignoring their rulings and the U.S. Supremes simply have to take a case to smack them back.......
We need 2 more Justices to be safe, since kennedy is a moron and you can't trust Roberts...
Slow down there mister... Sure, if the State determines that I (as an individual) deserve some scrutiny that is one thing. We are talking about a carte' blanche' Statewide, universal registration which flies in the face (the whole point) of the 2nd.Excuse me here... I have the Constitution on my side NOT you! Again, explain to me how my legally purchased and owned AR can be criminalized if I do not register it with the state... Btw, what insults... regardless, insults aren't germane to this conversation any way... treat them like redundant adj. or adv.'s don't get but hurt by them... the issues are what win arguments and upon which policy is crafted.. hopefully. lol
No you don't have the constitution on your side if the state decides that you shouldn't have your AR. The State has the constitution on IT's side since the constitution gives it the right to determine what is and what is not the acceptable norm for legal firearms. You are taking just one sentence from the constitution and disregarding the rest to suit your own whims. Just because you legally purchased the AR today doesn't mean that it will still be a legal private firearm later on. And the State can use Due Process to determine that. And Due Process is right out of the Constitution. You know, the part where you totally ignore. But the Supreme Court recognizes the 14th Amendment Section 1 pertaining to firearms and has consistently ruled in it's favor.
Claiming that the Constitution is on your side when it clearly isn't doesn't make it so. No matter how many times you keep repeating it. In order to say you are constitutional, you have to follow ALL of the Constitution and not just the parts that trip yer trigger.
The state has the right to require all firearms to be registered if it's done using due process of the law. It's the Freds that do not have that right. Some states require it and others don't. You don't like the way your state does things move to one that does itlike you want it to. Simple as that.
Wrong.....Haynes v United States ruled that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns, because it violates their Right against self incrimination....so if they don't have to register their illegal guns, law abiding citizens for damn sure don't have to register their legal guns....
I just read the whole thing and nowhere did it mention anything about Criminals owning guns outside of putting their sorry buts in prison.
I suggest you stop this nonsense. You are still hoping that the rest of us won't actually read the rulings. For those that want to read the real deal, here is the whole thing.
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)
This deals with weapons outside of the normal weapons that we, as citizens, might have in our homes. As in FFL licensed weapons, and importing and more. The average American will find nothing in there that is of any interest to most of us.
Now, SFBs, since when does the laws apply to the Criminals for Gun Control anyway and who is going to tell them it's okay if they disregard them? Are you saying that it's okay for Criminals to have guns that need FFL Licensing without licensing them?
+
Don't be delusional. The party in [power usually loses some seats during the midterms. Just look at what happen to that asshole Obama in 2010. Devestating, wasn't it? The same with Slick Willy in 1994. However, there will not be a big shift this year. No Blue wave that you Moon Bats are hoping for. Maybe a few seats lost but not enough to change the majority for the Republicans.
Meanwhile the filthy Democrats have too many Senate seats to defend, That is why the Republicans will pick up some of them, especially in the states that went for Trump in 2016.
On top of that Trump is still President.
It must suck to be a Moon Bat nowadays.
Newsflash: SFBs, I don't want the REps to lose the Senate. I do see them losing the House though and in 2020 there is a good possibility that they could lose the Presidency. You NEVER want all three in the hands of one party. The biggest messes are from when one party or the other controls all three. The next worst mess is when one party controls both the House and the Senate and the President is of the other Party. It's better to have one party hold the House while the other Party hold the Senate. The way to get two mules to pull together who constantly fight each other is to harness them together so they have no choice but to work it out.
But I don't expect your little pea brain to understand that.
You know, I agree with you.....after Trump appoints 3 more Justices to the Supreme Court and fills all the vacancies in the lower courts...... Then, after Trump, I might be able to do a little rebellion and vote Libertarian or another party....Right now it is too important to get Trump to fill those Judicial vacancies and replace ginsburg and kennedy at a minimum, hopefully breyer and maybe replace Thomas if he decides to retire...
There you go being a SFBs again. It won't matter if he does replace 3 more Justices. The Justices can only rule on the Constitution only. If it's not in the Constitution then they can't rule on it. The only way to get a different ruling is for Congress to change the Constitution. Are you aware of how many times the Supreme Court has tried to shame Congress into doing their damned jobs? It happens all the time. You are blaming the wrong branch while voting for the same pieces of Garbage in Congress.
Wrong.....you don't understand...you have the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuits making up gun laws and ignoring Heller, Caetano, Miller, McDonald......and because we have 4 left wing, anti gun justices and crazy Kennedy....the Court has not smacked them down for their rulings in Massachusetts, Deerfield, Highland park and California as well as New York....... they have already ruled on guns..... those courts of appeals are ignoring their rulings and the U.S. Supremes simply have to take a case to smack them back.......
We need 2 more Justices to be safe, since kennedy is a moron and you can't trust Roberts...
You still don't get the job that the Supreme Court and the lower Federal Courts do. When they rule on Constitutional Laws, they can only rule on what is in the Constitution, nothing more. You keep leaving out the 14th Amendment Section 1 that gives the States the rights to regulate firearms. But it doesn't give the Feds the same rights. The Federal Courts have no choice but to rule that way. You want them to rule any other way then get Congress to change the Constitution to read what you want it to read. It's not a right or left, Dem or Rep, Red or Blue thing. It's a Constitutional thing. This is why the one that Trump appointed appears to be leaning left. He's not leaning left. He is leaning Constitutional the way he should. Trump may be a baffoon in other ways but his choice was a good one for a Justice. And I don't see his next series of choices to be any different.
Like I said, if you want the rulings to be more to your liking, get congress to change the constitution to read more to your liking.
And please stop misrepresenting these other rulings. They don't even come close to what you claim they do. You only hope that the rest of us won't do a fact check and see you are just lying out your ass.
Newsflash: SFBs, I don't want the REps to lose the Senate. I do see them losing the House though and in 2020 there is a good possibility that they could lose the Presidency. You NEVER want all three in the hands of one party. The biggest messes are from when one party or the other controls all three. The next worst mess is when one party controls both the House and the Senate and the President is of the other Party. It's better to have one party hold the House while the other Party hold the Senate. The way to get two mules to pull together who constantly fight each other is to harness them together so they have no choice but to work it out.
But I don't expect your little pea brain to understand that.
You know, I agree with you.....after Trump appoints 3 more Justices to the Supreme Court and fills all the vacancies in the lower courts...... Then, after Trump, I might be able to do a little rebellion and vote Libertarian or another party....Right now it is too important to get Trump to fill those Judicial vacancies and replace ginsburg and kennedy at a minimum, hopefully breyer and maybe replace Thomas if he decides to retire...
There you go being a SFBs again. It won't matter if he does replace 3 more Justices. The Justices can only rule on the Constitution only. If it's not in the Constitution then they can't rule on it. The only way to get a different ruling is for Congress to change the Constitution. Are you aware of how many times the Supreme Court has tried to shame Congress into doing their damned jobs? It happens all the time. You are blaming the wrong branch while voting for the same pieces of Garbage in Congress.
Wrong.....you don't understand...you have the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuits making up gun laws and ignoring Heller, Caetano, Miller, McDonald......and because we have 4 left wing, anti gun justices and crazy Kennedy....the Court has not smacked them down for their rulings in Massachusetts, Deerfield, Highland park and California as well as New York....... they have already ruled on guns..... those courts of appeals are ignoring their rulings and the U.S. Supremes simply have to take a case to smack them back.......
We need 2 more Justices to be safe, since kennedy is a moron and you can't trust Roberts...
You still don't get the job that the Supreme Court and the lower Federal Courts do. When they rule on Constitutional Laws, they can only rule on what is in the Constitution, nothing more. You keep leaving out the 14th Amendment Section 1 that gives the States the rights to regulate firearms. But it doesn't give the Feds the same rights. The Federal Courts have no choice but to rule that way. You want them to rule any other way then get Congress to change the Constitution to read what you want it to read. It's not a right or left, Dem or Rep, Red or Blue thing. It's a Constitutional thing. This is why the one that Trump appointed appears to be leaning left. He's not leaning left. He is leaning Constitutional the way he should. Trump may be a baffoon in other ways but his choice was a good one for a Justice. And I don't see his next series of choices to be any different.
Like I said, if you want the rulings to be more to your liking, get congress to change the constitution to read more to your liking.
And please stop misrepresenting these other rulings. They don't even come close to what you claim they do. You only hope that the rest of us won't do a fact check and see you are just lying out your ass.
They already ruled on guns....in D.C v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v United States, and others like the dissent in Friedman v Highland park where Scalia explained to the 7th circuit that their upholding the ban on Assualt rifles was unConstitutional.....you don't get it, these are rulings that actually exist...they don't have to make things up, the lower courts are ignoring actual Constitutional Law when they ignore these rulings..... They have ruled on the 2nd Amendment, it is an individual Right and protects all bearable arms...specifically the AR-15 rifle.....they already ruled on this .....
You. Don't. Get. It.
Slow down there mister... Sure, if the State determines that I (as an individual) deserve some scrutiny that is one thing. We are talking about a carte' blanche' Statewide, universal registration which flies in the face (the whole point) of the 2nd.No you don't have the constitution on your side if the state decides that you shouldn't have your AR. The State has the constitution on IT's side since the constitution gives it the right to determine what is and what is not the acceptable norm for legal firearms. You are taking just one sentence from the constitution and disregarding the rest to suit your own whims. Just because you legally purchased the AR today doesn't mean that it will still be a legal private firearm later on. And the State can use Due Process to determine that. And Due Process is right out of the Constitution. You know, the part where you totally ignore. But the Supreme Court recognizes the 14th Amendment Section 1 pertaining to firearms and has consistently ruled in it's favor.
Claiming that the Constitution is on your side when it clearly isn't doesn't make it so. No matter how many times you keep repeating it. In order to say you are constitutional, you have to follow ALL of the Constitution and not just the parts that trip yer trigger.
The state has the right to require all firearms to be registered if it's done using due process of the law. It's the Freds that do not have that right. Some states require it and others don't. You don't like the way your state does things move to one that does itlike you want it to. Simple as that.
Wrong.....Haynes v United States ruled that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns, because it violates their Right against self incrimination....so if they don't have to register their illegal guns, law abiding citizens for damn sure don't have to register their legal guns....
I just read the whole thing and nowhere did it mention anything about Criminals owning guns outside of putting their sorry buts in prison.
I suggest you stop this nonsense. You are still hoping that the rest of us won't actually read the rulings. For those that want to read the real deal, here is the whole thing.
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)
This deals with weapons outside of the normal weapons that we, as citizens, might have in our homes. As in FFL licensed weapons, and importing and more. The average American will find nothing in there that is of any interest to most of us.
Now, SFBs, since when does the laws apply to the Criminals for Gun Control anyway and who is going to tell them it's okay if they disregard them? Are you saying that it's okay for Criminals to have guns that need FFL Licensing without licensing them?
Please....actually read it this time....
3. A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under § 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under § 5851. Pp. 390 U. S. 95-100.
Here....a good explanation...
The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration
Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." [2]The Court concluded:
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851. [3]
Newsflash: SFBs, I don't want the REps to lose the Senate. I do see them losing the House though and in 2020 there is a good possibility that they could lose the Presidency. You NEVER want all three in the hands of one party. The biggest messes are from when one party or the other controls all three. The next worst mess is when one party controls both the House and the Senate and the President is of the other Party. It's better to have one party hold the House while the other Party hold the Senate. The way to get two mules to pull together who constantly fight each other is to harness them together so they have no choice but to work it out.
But I don't expect your little pea brain to understand that.
You know, I agree with you.....after Trump appoints 3 more Justices to the Supreme Court and fills all the vacancies in the lower courts...... Then, after Trump, I might be able to do a little rebellion and vote Libertarian or another party....Right now it is too important to get Trump to fill those Judicial vacancies and replace ginsburg and kennedy at a minimum, hopefully breyer and maybe replace Thomas if he decides to retire...
There you go being a SFBs again. It won't matter if he does replace 3 more Justices. The Justices can only rule on the Constitution only. If it's not in the Constitution then they can't rule on it. The only way to get a different ruling is for Congress to change the Constitution. Are you aware of how many times the Supreme Court has tried to shame Congress into doing their damned jobs? It happens all the time. You are blaming the wrong branch while voting for the same pieces of Garbage in Congress.
Wrong.....you don't understand...you have the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuits making up gun laws and ignoring Heller, Caetano, Miller, McDonald......and because we have 4 left wing, anti gun justices and crazy Kennedy....the Court has not smacked them down for their rulings in Massachusetts, Deerfield, Highland park and California as well as New York....... they have already ruled on guns..... those courts of appeals are ignoring their rulings and the U.S. Supremes simply have to take a case to smack them back.......
We need 2 more Justices to be safe, since kennedy is a moron and you can't trust Roberts...
You still don't get the job that the Supreme Court and the lower Federal Courts do. When they rule on Constitutional Laws, they can only rule on what is in the Constitution, nothing more. You keep leaving out the 14th Amendment Section 1 that gives the States the rights to regulate firearms. But it doesn't give the Feds the same rights. The Federal Courts have no choice but to rule that way. You want them to rule any other way then get Congress to change the Constitution to read what you want it to read. It's not a right or left, Dem or Rep, Red or Blue thing. It's a Constitutional thing. This is why the one that Trump appointed appears to be leaning left. He's not leaning left. He is leaning Constitutional the way he should. Trump may be a baffoon in other ways but his choice was a good one for a Justice. And I don't see his next series of choices to be any different.
Like I said, if you want the rulings to be more to your liking, get congress to change the constitution to read more to your liking.
And please stop misrepresenting these other rulings. They don't even come close to what you claim they do. You only hope that the rest of us won't do a fact check and see you are just lying out your ass.
They already ruled on guns....in D.C v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v United States, and others like the dissent in Friedman v Highland park where Scalia explained to the 7th circuit that their upholding the ban on Assualt rifles was unConstitutional.....you don't get it, these are rulings that actually exist...they don't have to make things up, the lower courts are ignoring actual Constitutional Law when they ignore these rulings..... They have ruled on the 2nd Amendment, it is an individual Right and protects all bearable arms...specifically the AR-15 rifle.....they already ruled on this .....
You. Don't. Get. It.
Don't conflate the two... The 5th (Haynes v US) in the above is only setting precedence... the issue is a given state legislating law abiding citizens into criminals vis-a-vis mandatory, universal gun registration... lol State Constitutions can only go so far withing the purview of US Constitutionality.Slow down there mister... Sure, if the State determines that I (as an individual) deserve some scrutiny that is one thing. We are talking about a carte' blanche' Statewide, universal registration which flies in the face (the whole point) of the 2nd.
The state has the right to require all firearms to be registered if it's done using due process of the law. It's the Freds that do not have that right. Some states require it and others don't. You don't like the way your state does things move to one that does itlike you want it to. Simple as that.
Wrong.....Haynes v United States ruled that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns, because it violates their Right against self incrimination....so if they don't have to register their illegal guns, law abiding citizens for damn sure don't have to register their legal guns....
I just read the whole thing and nowhere did it mention anything about Criminals owning guns outside of putting their sorry buts in prison.
I suggest you stop this nonsense. You are still hoping that the rest of us won't actually read the rulings. For those that want to read the real deal, here is the whole thing.
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)
This deals with weapons outside of the normal weapons that we, as citizens, might have in our homes. As in FFL licensed weapons, and importing and more. The average American will find nothing in there that is of any interest to most of us.
Now, SFBs, since when does the laws apply to the Criminals for Gun Control anyway and who is going to tell them it's okay if they disregard them? Are you saying that it's okay for Criminals to have guns that need FFL Licensing without licensing them?
Please....actually read it this time....
3. A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under § 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under § 5851. Pp. 390 U. S. 95-100.
Here....a good explanation...
The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration
Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." [2]The Court concluded:
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851. [3]
You are now supporting Criminals with Guns? Is this a new market that the NRA believes might further the sales of more guns?
Don't conflate the two... The 5th (Haynes v US) in the above is only setting precedence... the issue is a given state legislating law abiding citizens into criminals vis-a-vis mandatory, universal gun registration... lol State Constitutions can only go so far withing the purview of US Constitutionality.The state has the right to require all firearms to be registered if it's done using due process of the law. It's the Freds that do not have that right. Some states require it and others don't. You don't like the way your state does things move to one that does itlike you want it to. Simple as that.
Wrong.....Haynes v United States ruled that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns, because it violates their Right against self incrimination....so if they don't have to register their illegal guns, law abiding citizens for damn sure don't have to register their legal guns....
I just read the whole thing and nowhere did it mention anything about Criminals owning guns outside of putting their sorry buts in prison.
I suggest you stop this nonsense. You are still hoping that the rest of us won't actually read the rulings. For those that want to read the real deal, here is the whole thing.
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)
This deals with weapons outside of the normal weapons that we, as citizens, might have in our homes. As in FFL licensed weapons, and importing and more. The average American will find nothing in there that is of any interest to most of us.
Now, SFBs, since when does the laws apply to the Criminals for Gun Control anyway and who is going to tell them it's okay if they disregard them? Are you saying that it's okay for Criminals to have guns that need FFL Licensing without licensing them?
Please....actually read it this time....
3. A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under § 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under § 5851. Pp. 390 U. S. 95-100.
Here....a good explanation...
The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration
Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." [2]The Court concluded:
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851. [3]
You are now supporting Criminals with Guns? Is this a new market that the NRA believes might further the sales of more guns?
You know, I agree with you.....after Trump appoints 3 more Justices to the Supreme Court and fills all the vacancies in the lower courts...... Then, after Trump, I might be able to do a little rebellion and vote Libertarian or another party....Right now it is too important to get Trump to fill those Judicial vacancies and replace ginsburg and kennedy at a minimum, hopefully breyer and maybe replace Thomas if he decides to retire...
There you go being a SFBs again. It won't matter if he does replace 3 more Justices. The Justices can only rule on the Constitution only. If it's not in the Constitution then they can't rule on it. The only way to get a different ruling is for Congress to change the Constitution. Are you aware of how many times the Supreme Court has tried to shame Congress into doing their damned jobs? It happens all the time. You are blaming the wrong branch while voting for the same pieces of Garbage in Congress.
Wrong.....you don't understand...you have the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuits making up gun laws and ignoring Heller, Caetano, Miller, McDonald......and because we have 4 left wing, anti gun justices and crazy Kennedy....the Court has not smacked them down for their rulings in Massachusetts, Deerfield, Highland park and California as well as New York....... they have already ruled on guns..... those courts of appeals are ignoring their rulings and the U.S. Supremes simply have to take a case to smack them back.......
We need 2 more Justices to be safe, since kennedy is a moron and you can't trust Roberts...
You still don't get the job that the Supreme Court and the lower Federal Courts do. When they rule on Constitutional Laws, they can only rule on what is in the Constitution, nothing more. You keep leaving out the 14th Amendment Section 1 that gives the States the rights to regulate firearms. But it doesn't give the Feds the same rights. The Federal Courts have no choice but to rule that way. You want them to rule any other way then get Congress to change the Constitution to read what you want it to read. It's not a right or left, Dem or Rep, Red or Blue thing. It's a Constitutional thing. This is why the one that Trump appointed appears to be leaning left. He's not leaning left. He is leaning Constitutional the way he should. Trump may be a baffoon in other ways but his choice was a good one for a Justice. And I don't see his next series of choices to be any different.
Like I said, if you want the rulings to be more to your liking, get congress to change the constitution to read more to your liking.
And please stop misrepresenting these other rulings. They don't even come close to what you claim they do. You only hope that the rest of us won't do a fact check and see you are just lying out your ass.
They already ruled on guns....in D.C v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v United States, and others like the dissent in Friedman v Highland park where Scalia explained to the 7th circuit that their upholding the ban on Assualt rifles was unConstitutional.....you don't get it, these are rulings that actually exist...they don't have to make things up, the lower courts are ignoring actual Constitutional Law when they ignore these rulings..... They have ruled on the 2nd Amendment, it is an individual Right and protects all bearable arms...specifically the AR-15 rifle.....they already ruled on this .....
You. Don't. Get. It.
I get it. You are misquoting. Scalia was one of the ones that ruled to not hear it along with the majority. Therefore, the lower court upholding it stands. That means the ordinance for banning said weapons and mags stood. This is another case where the Supreme Court is, more or less, throwing it into the face of Congress that they need to do something in the form of updating the 2nd amendment and other amendments to close things up a bit. It's not up to the Supreme Court to make new laws. And that is exactly what they would have to do to make any kind of ruling on this. Scalia's personal opinion doesn't mean a thing. It's his vote to not hear the case that counts.
SFBs, you really need to move on to something else. Others already have been educated on this. Ignorance is by choice and the way to change ignorance is to learn. Meanwhile, Stupidity like you keep trying just can't be cured.
There you go being a SFBs again. It won't matter if he does replace 3 more Justices. The Justices can only rule on the Constitution only. If it's not in the Constitution then they can't rule on it. The only way to get a different ruling is for Congress to change the Constitution. Are you aware of how many times the Supreme Court has tried to shame Congress into doing their damned jobs? It happens all the time. You are blaming the wrong branch while voting for the same pieces of Garbage in Congress.
Wrong.....you don't understand...you have the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuits making up gun laws and ignoring Heller, Caetano, Miller, McDonald......and because we have 4 left wing, anti gun justices and crazy Kennedy....the Court has not smacked them down for their rulings in Massachusetts, Deerfield, Highland park and California as well as New York....... they have already ruled on guns..... those courts of appeals are ignoring their rulings and the U.S. Supremes simply have to take a case to smack them back.......
We need 2 more Justices to be safe, since kennedy is a moron and you can't trust Roberts...
You still don't get the job that the Supreme Court and the lower Federal Courts do. When they rule on Constitutional Laws, they can only rule on what is in the Constitution, nothing more. You keep leaving out the 14th Amendment Section 1 that gives the States the rights to regulate firearms. But it doesn't give the Feds the same rights. The Federal Courts have no choice but to rule that way. You want them to rule any other way then get Congress to change the Constitution to read what you want it to read. It's not a right or left, Dem or Rep, Red or Blue thing. It's a Constitutional thing. This is why the one that Trump appointed appears to be leaning left. He's not leaning left. He is leaning Constitutional the way he should. Trump may be a baffoon in other ways but his choice was a good one for a Justice. And I don't see his next series of choices to be any different.
Like I said, if you want the rulings to be more to your liking, get congress to change the constitution to read more to your liking.
And please stop misrepresenting these other rulings. They don't even come close to what you claim they do. You only hope that the rest of us won't do a fact check and see you are just lying out your ass.
They already ruled on guns....in D.C v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v United States, and others like the dissent in Friedman v Highland park where Scalia explained to the 7th circuit that their upholding the ban on Assualt rifles was unConstitutional.....you don't get it, these are rulings that actually exist...they don't have to make things up, the lower courts are ignoring actual Constitutional Law when they ignore these rulings..... They have ruled on the 2nd Amendment, it is an individual Right and protects all bearable arms...specifically the AR-15 rifle.....they already ruled on this .....
You. Don't. Get. It.
I get it. You are misquoting. Scalia was one of the ones that ruled to not hear it along with the majority. Therefore, the lower court upholding it stands. That means the ordinance for banning said weapons and mags stood. This is another case where the Supreme Court is, more or less, throwing it into the face of Congress that they need to do something in the form of updating the 2nd amendment and other amendments to close things up a bit. It's not up to the Supreme Court to make new laws. And that is exactly what they would have to do to make any kind of ruling on this. Scalia's personal opinion doesn't mean a thing. It's his vote to not hear the case that counts.
SFBs, you really need to move on to something else. Others already have been educated on this. Ignorance is by choice and the way to change ignorance is to learn. Meanwhile, Stupidity like you keep trying just can't be cured.
wrong...again. They ruled not to hear it because neither side could trust that their side would win.....it doesn't set Precedent since the Court didn't hear it. It isn't his personal opinion, it was the majority opinion of the court in Heller.
There you go being a SFBs again. It won't matter if he does replace 3 more Justices. The Justices can only rule on the Constitution only. If it's not in the Constitution then they can't rule on it. The only way to get a different ruling is for Congress to change the Constitution. Are you aware of how many times the Supreme Court has tried to shame Congress into doing their damned jobs? It happens all the time. You are blaming the wrong branch while voting for the same pieces of Garbage in Congress.
Wrong.....you don't understand...you have the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuits making up gun laws and ignoring Heller, Caetano, Miller, McDonald......and because we have 4 left wing, anti gun justices and crazy Kennedy....the Court has not smacked them down for their rulings in Massachusetts, Deerfield, Highland park and California as well as New York....... they have already ruled on guns..... those courts of appeals are ignoring their rulings and the U.S. Supremes simply have to take a case to smack them back.......
We need 2 more Justices to be safe, since kennedy is a moron and you can't trust Roberts...
You still don't get the job that the Supreme Court and the lower Federal Courts do. When they rule on Constitutional Laws, they can only rule on what is in the Constitution, nothing more. You keep leaving out the 14th Amendment Section 1 that gives the States the rights to regulate firearms. But it doesn't give the Feds the same rights. The Federal Courts have no choice but to rule that way. You want them to rule any other way then get Congress to change the Constitution to read what you want it to read. It's not a right or left, Dem or Rep, Red or Blue thing. It's a Constitutional thing. This is why the one that Trump appointed appears to be leaning left. He's not leaning left. He is leaning Constitutional the way he should. Trump may be a baffoon in other ways but his choice was a good one for a Justice. And I don't see his next series of choices to be any different.
Like I said, if you want the rulings to be more to your liking, get congress to change the constitution to read more to your liking.
And please stop misrepresenting these other rulings. They don't even come close to what you claim they do. You only hope that the rest of us won't do a fact check and see you are just lying out your ass.
They already ruled on guns....in D.C v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v United States, and others like the dissent in Friedman v Highland park where Scalia explained to the 7th circuit that their upholding the ban on Assualt rifles was unConstitutional.....you don't get it, these are rulings that actually exist...they don't have to make things up, the lower courts are ignoring actual Constitutional Law when they ignore these rulings..... They have ruled on the 2nd Amendment, it is an individual Right and protects all bearable arms...specifically the AR-15 rifle.....they already ruled on this .....
You. Don't. Get. It.
I get it. You are misquoting. Scalia was one of the ones that ruled to not hear it along with the majority. Therefore, the lower court upholding it stands. That means the ordinance for banning said weapons and mags stood. This is another case where the Supreme Court is, more or less, throwing it into the face of Congress that they need to do something in the form of updating the 2nd amendment and other amendments to close things up a bit. It's not up to the Supreme Court to make new laws. And that is exactly what they would have to do to make any kind of ruling on this. Scalia's personal opinion doesn't mean a thing. It's his vote to not hear the case that counts.
SFBs, you really need to move on to something else. Others already have been educated on this. Ignorance is by choice and the way to change ignorance is to learn. Meanwhile, Stupidity like you keep trying just can't be cured.
wrong...again. They ruled not to hear it because neither side could trust that their side would win.....it doesn't set Precedent since the Court didn't hear it. It isn't his personal opinion, it was the majority opinion of the court in Heller.
Wrong.....you don't understand...you have the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuits making up gun laws and ignoring Heller, Caetano, Miller, McDonald......and because we have 4 left wing, anti gun justices and crazy Kennedy....the Court has not smacked them down for their rulings in Massachusetts, Deerfield, Highland park and California as well as New York....... they have already ruled on guns..... those courts of appeals are ignoring their rulings and the U.S. Supremes simply have to take a case to smack them back.......
We need 2 more Justices to be safe, since kennedy is a moron and you can't trust Roberts...
You still don't get the job that the Supreme Court and the lower Federal Courts do. When they rule on Constitutional Laws, they can only rule on what is in the Constitution, nothing more. You keep leaving out the 14th Amendment Section 1 that gives the States the rights to regulate firearms. But it doesn't give the Feds the same rights. The Federal Courts have no choice but to rule that way. You want them to rule any other way then get Congress to change the Constitution to read what you want it to read. It's not a right or left, Dem or Rep, Red or Blue thing. It's a Constitutional thing. This is why the one that Trump appointed appears to be leaning left. He's not leaning left. He is leaning Constitutional the way he should. Trump may be a baffoon in other ways but his choice was a good one for a Justice. And I don't see his next series of choices to be any different.
Like I said, if you want the rulings to be more to your liking, get congress to change the constitution to read more to your liking.
And please stop misrepresenting these other rulings. They don't even come close to what you claim they do. You only hope that the rest of us won't do a fact check and see you are just lying out your ass.
They already ruled on guns....in D.C v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v United States, and others like the dissent in Friedman v Highland park where Scalia explained to the 7th circuit that their upholding the ban on Assualt rifles was unConstitutional.....you don't get it, these are rulings that actually exist...they don't have to make things up, the lower courts are ignoring actual Constitutional Law when they ignore these rulings..... They have ruled on the 2nd Amendment, it is an individual Right and protects all bearable arms...specifically the AR-15 rifle.....they already ruled on this .....
You. Don't. Get. It.
I get it. You are misquoting. Scalia was one of the ones that ruled to not hear it along with the majority. Therefore, the lower court upholding it stands. That means the ordinance for banning said weapons and mags stood. This is another case where the Supreme Court is, more or less, throwing it into the face of Congress that they need to do something in the form of updating the 2nd amendment and other amendments to close things up a bit. It's not up to the Supreme Court to make new laws. And that is exactly what they would have to do to make any kind of ruling on this. Scalia's personal opinion doesn't mean a thing. It's his vote to not hear the case that counts.
SFBs, you really need to move on to something else. Others already have been educated on this. Ignorance is by choice and the way to change ignorance is to learn. Meanwhile, Stupidity like you keep trying just can't be cured.
wrong...again. They ruled not to hear it because neither side could trust that their side would win.....it doesn't set Precedent since the Court didn't hear it. It isn't his personal opinion, it was the majority opinion of the court in Heller.
Are you still trying to use a ruling for DC to apply to states? Never going to happen. Once again, DC is NOT a state and the 14th amendment does not apply to it since it only applies to states. Heller V only applies to DC and nowhere else. And, even then, the DC law went too far. It made it too tight on handguns. It required ALL handguns in the homes to be unloaded and have trigger guards among other things rendering them useless. The Heller V only applied to this ruling and only in the homes. It removed the need to render your handgun inoperative in the home. This only applies to "Normal" home defense firearms like handguns and nothing else. It didn't have anything to do with any firearms outside of the homes.
You SFBs keep bringing this up hoping that you can find people that won't fact check it. Well, cupcake, you are too late. Heller V isn't the panacea you believe it to be. This is so dumb I don't even think you can believe what you are spewing. Then again, maybe you can.
Wrong.....you don't understand...you have the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuits making up gun laws and ignoring Heller, Caetano, Miller, McDonald......and because we have 4 left wing, anti gun justices and crazy Kennedy....the Court has not smacked them down for their rulings in Massachusetts, Deerfield, Highland park and California as well as New York....... they have already ruled on guns..... those courts of appeals are ignoring their rulings and the U.S. Supremes simply have to take a case to smack them back.......
We need 2 more Justices to be safe, since kennedy is a moron and you can't trust Roberts...
You still don't get the job that the Supreme Court and the lower Federal Courts do. When they rule on Constitutional Laws, they can only rule on what is in the Constitution, nothing more. You keep leaving out the 14th Amendment Section 1 that gives the States the rights to regulate firearms. But it doesn't give the Feds the same rights. The Federal Courts have no choice but to rule that way. You want them to rule any other way then get Congress to change the Constitution to read what you want it to read. It's not a right or left, Dem or Rep, Red or Blue thing. It's a Constitutional thing. This is why the one that Trump appointed appears to be leaning left. He's not leaning left. He is leaning Constitutional the way he should. Trump may be a baffoon in other ways but his choice was a good one for a Justice. And I don't see his next series of choices to be any different.
Like I said, if you want the rulings to be more to your liking, get congress to change the constitution to read more to your liking.
And please stop misrepresenting these other rulings. They don't even come close to what you claim they do. You only hope that the rest of us won't do a fact check and see you are just lying out your ass.
They already ruled on guns....in D.C v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v United States, and others like the dissent in Friedman v Highland park where Scalia explained to the 7th circuit that their upholding the ban on Assualt rifles was unConstitutional.....you don't get it, these are rulings that actually exist...they don't have to make things up, the lower courts are ignoring actual Constitutional Law when they ignore these rulings..... They have ruled on the 2nd Amendment, it is an individual Right and protects all bearable arms...specifically the AR-15 rifle.....they already ruled on this .....
You. Don't. Get. It.
I get it. You are misquoting. Scalia was one of the ones that ruled to not hear it along with the majority. Therefore, the lower court upholding it stands. That means the ordinance for banning said weapons and mags stood. This is another case where the Supreme Court is, more or less, throwing it into the face of Congress that they need to do something in the form of updating the 2nd amendment and other amendments to close things up a bit. It's not up to the Supreme Court to make new laws. And that is exactly what they would have to do to make any kind of ruling on this. Scalia's personal opinion doesn't mean a thing. It's his vote to not hear the case that counts.
SFBs, you really need to move on to something else. Others already have been educated on this. Ignorance is by choice and the way to change ignorance is to learn. Meanwhile, Stupidity like you keep trying just can't be cured.
wrong...again. They ruled not to hear it because neither side could trust that their side would win.....it doesn't set Precedent since the Court didn't hear it. It isn't his personal opinion, it was the majority opinion of the court in Heller.
Are you still trying to use a ruling for DC to apply to states? Never going to happen. Once again, DC is NOT a state and the 14th amendment does not apply to it since it only applies to states. Heller V only applies to DC and nowhere else. And, even then, the DC law went too far. It made it too tight on handguns. It required ALL handguns in the homes to be unloaded and have trigger guards among other things rendering them useless. The Heller V only applied to this ruling and only in the homes. It removed the need to render your handgun inoperative in the home. This only applies to "Normal" home defense firearms like handguns and nothing else. It didn't have anything to do with any firearms outside of the homes.
You SFBs keep bringing this up hoping that you can find people that won't fact check it. Well, cupcake, you are too late. Heller V isn't the panacea you believe it to be. This is so dumb I don't even think you can believe what you are spewing. Then again, maybe you can.
You still don't get the job that the Supreme Court and the lower Federal Courts do. When they rule on Constitutional Laws, they can only rule on what is in the Constitution, nothing more. You keep leaving out the 14th Amendment Section 1 that gives the States the rights to regulate firearms. But it doesn't give the Feds the same rights. The Federal Courts have no choice but to rule that way. You want them to rule any other way then get Congress to change the Constitution to read what you want it to read. It's not a right or left, Dem or Rep, Red or Blue thing. It's a Constitutional thing. This is why the one that Trump appointed appears to be leaning left. He's not leaning left. He is leaning Constitutional the way he should. Trump may be a baffoon in other ways but his choice was a good one for a Justice. And I don't see his next series of choices to be any different.
Like I said, if you want the rulings to be more to your liking, get congress to change the constitution to read more to your liking.
And please stop misrepresenting these other rulings. They don't even come close to what you claim they do. You only hope that the rest of us won't do a fact check and see you are just lying out your ass.
They already ruled on guns....in D.C v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v United States, and others like the dissent in Friedman v Highland park where Scalia explained to the 7th circuit that their upholding the ban on Assualt rifles was unConstitutional.....you don't get it, these are rulings that actually exist...they don't have to make things up, the lower courts are ignoring actual Constitutional Law when they ignore these rulings..... They have ruled on the 2nd Amendment, it is an individual Right and protects all bearable arms...specifically the AR-15 rifle.....they already ruled on this .....
You. Don't. Get. It.
I get it. You are misquoting. Scalia was one of the ones that ruled to not hear it along with the majority. Therefore, the lower court upholding it stands. That means the ordinance for banning said weapons and mags stood. This is another case where the Supreme Court is, more or less, throwing it into the face of Congress that they need to do something in the form of updating the 2nd amendment and other amendments to close things up a bit. It's not up to the Supreme Court to make new laws. And that is exactly what they would have to do to make any kind of ruling on this. Scalia's personal opinion doesn't mean a thing. It's his vote to not hear the case that counts.
SFBs, you really need to move on to something else. Others already have been educated on this. Ignorance is by choice and the way to change ignorance is to learn. Meanwhile, Stupidity like you keep trying just can't be cured.
wrong...again. They ruled not to hear it because neither side could trust that their side would win.....it doesn't set Precedent since the Court didn't hear it. It isn't his personal opinion, it was the majority opinion of the court in Heller.
Are you still trying to use a ruling for DC to apply to states? Never going to happen. Once again, DC is NOT a state and the 14th amendment does not apply to it since it only applies to states. Heller V only applies to DC and nowhere else. And, even then, the DC law went too far. It made it too tight on handguns. It required ALL handguns in the homes to be unloaded and have trigger guards among other things rendering them useless. The Heller V only applied to this ruling and only in the homes. It removed the need to render your handgun inoperative in the home. This only applies to "Normal" home defense firearms like handguns and nothing else. It didn't have anything to do with any firearms outside of the homes.
You SFBs keep bringing this up hoping that you can find people that won't fact check it. Well, cupcake, you are too late. Heller V isn't the panacea you believe it to be. This is so dumb I don't even think you can believe what you are spewing. Then again, maybe you can.
Oh, I see....you are confusing Heller with the recent ruling in D.C. that forces them to give out concealed carry permits....the D.C. government did not appeal the case to the Supreme Court because they didn't want to take a chance on the Court ruling against them too, and thus making it a national Ruling instead of just for D.C..... you don't know what you are talking about...
Heller is not what you are thinking of.......Heller does what we keep telling you it does, it protects the individual Right to keep and bear arms.....all bearable arms...the D.C. ruling is just for concealed carry in D.C....
D. C. will not appeal concealed carry gun ruling to Supreme Court
District officials will not appeal a court order blocking enforcement of the city's restrictions on carrying concealed guns in public, setting the stage for what could be a marked increase in firearms on the streets of the nation's capital.
The city's decision not to risk appeal to the Supreme Court comes as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is expected to issue an order as soon as Friday enforcing a ruling that struck down the District's requirement that people seeking licenses to carry concealed weapons must demonstrate a "good reason" — such as a credible fear of violence — for carrying a gun in public.
Announcing his decision, D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) said he continued to believe the city's law was sensible and constitutional. But he said an unfavorable ruling on the law from the Supreme Court would put similar concealed-carry restrictions across the country in jeopardy.
"We must reckon with the fact that an adverse decision by the Supreme Court could have wide-ranging negative effects not just on District residents, but on the country as a whole," Racine said in a statement.
You still don't get the job that the Supreme Court and the lower Federal Courts do. When they rule on Constitutional Laws, they can only rule on what is in the Constitution, nothing more. You keep leaving out the 14th Amendment Section 1 that gives the States the rights to regulate firearms. But it doesn't give the Feds the same rights. The Federal Courts have no choice but to rule that way. You want them to rule any other way then get Congress to change the Constitution to read what you want it to read. It's not a right or left, Dem or Rep, Red or Blue thing. It's a Constitutional thing. This is why the one that Trump appointed appears to be leaning left. He's not leaning left. He is leaning Constitutional the way he should. Trump may be a baffoon in other ways but his choice was a good one for a Justice. And I don't see his next series of choices to be any different.
Like I said, if you want the rulings to be more to your liking, get congress to change the constitution to read more to your liking.
And please stop misrepresenting these other rulings. They don't even come close to what you claim they do. You only hope that the rest of us won't do a fact check and see you are just lying out your ass.
They already ruled on guns....in D.C v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller v United States, and others like the dissent in Friedman v Highland park where Scalia explained to the 7th circuit that their upholding the ban on Assualt rifles was unConstitutional.....you don't get it, these are rulings that actually exist...they don't have to make things up, the lower courts are ignoring actual Constitutional Law when they ignore these rulings..... They have ruled on the 2nd Amendment, it is an individual Right and protects all bearable arms...specifically the AR-15 rifle.....they already ruled on this .....
You. Don't. Get. It.
I get it. You are misquoting. Scalia was one of the ones that ruled to not hear it along with the majority. Therefore, the lower court upholding it stands. That means the ordinance for banning said weapons and mags stood. This is another case where the Supreme Court is, more or less, throwing it into the face of Congress that they need to do something in the form of updating the 2nd amendment and other amendments to close things up a bit. It's not up to the Supreme Court to make new laws. And that is exactly what they would have to do to make any kind of ruling on this. Scalia's personal opinion doesn't mean a thing. It's his vote to not hear the case that counts.
SFBs, you really need to move on to something else. Others already have been educated on this. Ignorance is by choice and the way to change ignorance is to learn. Meanwhile, Stupidity like you keep trying just can't be cured.
wrong...again. They ruled not to hear it because neither side could trust that their side would win.....it doesn't set Precedent since the Court didn't hear it. It isn't his personal opinion, it was the majority opinion of the court in Heller.
Are you still trying to use a ruling for DC to apply to states? Never going to happen. Once again, DC is NOT a state and the 14th amendment does not apply to it since it only applies to states. Heller V only applies to DC and nowhere else. And, even then, the DC law went too far. It made it too tight on handguns. It required ALL handguns in the homes to be unloaded and have trigger guards among other things rendering them useless. The Heller V only applied to this ruling and only in the homes. It removed the need to render your handgun inoperative in the home. This only applies to "Normal" home defense firearms like handguns and nothing else. It didn't have anything to do with any firearms outside of the homes.
You SFBs keep bringing this up hoping that you can find people that won't fact check it. Well, cupcake, you are too late. Heller V isn't the panacea you believe it to be. This is so dumb I don't even think you can believe what you are spewing. Then again, maybe you can.
Heller...... showing you don't know what you are talking about...it also cites Miller v United States....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
And for people like you....especially the idiots on the courts of appeals.....Scalia spells it out in Friedman v Highland Park......because they refuse to obey the Heller decision...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
. Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Ignorant dumb fuck, a semi-automatic .22 is not a bolt action. And what a lazy ass, so hard to feed a round at a time into the tubular magazine. Simply have a the item that hold the spring that pushes the shells back extended so that only a legal amount of shells can be loaded into the tube.They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...
Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns
The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.
Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.
They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.
Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.
Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?
The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.
The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.
This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.
Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about.....this is about the Deerfield gun ban that now will ban a bolt action .22 rifle...
My Family's Peashooter Is Now an Illegal 'Assault Weapon' in This Illinois Town
Though my parents were hardly gun nuts, our family did keep on hand an old semi-automatic .22 rifle with a fixed 14-round capacity magazine.
A magazine that size added convenience to the two or three days a year that we would go target shooting, as it reduced the number of times one would have to pause and reload—a laborious process that required rounds to be fed individually into the rifle's tubular magazine.
What was a convenient target shooter for us is a now deadly assault weapon in Deerfield, Illinois.
-----
The bill specifically bans AR-15s and a number of pistols and shotguns. After June 13, anyone caught within the town limits with one of these prohibited weapons will face up to $1,000 in daily fines per violation until said violation is corrected.
From USA Today to CNN, most media reports on the bill describe it as an "assault weapon" ban, which is perhaps understandable given that is how the authors themselves describe it. Few bother to note the incredibly common weapons that Deerfield officials have chosen to lump into this category. Weapons like my parents' rifle.
The sweeping nature of the law is matched by the sweeping social change the bill's authors expect it to engender. The legislation's text confidently declares it "may increase the public's sense of safety by effecting a cultural change which communicates the normative value that assault weapons should have no role or purpose in civil society."
