This was Gura's handiwork.
http://cloud.tapatal...889/144549p.pdf
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Edited by skinnyb82, 09 September 2016 - 11:31 AM.
Posted 09 September 2016 - 11:28 AM
Edited by skinnyb82, 09 September 2016 - 11:31 AM.
Posted 09 September 2016 - 01:04 PM
And I thought it was the Democrats that more firmly believe in second, third, fourth...chances.
Posted 09 September 2016 - 01:19 PM
Posted 09 September 2016 - 02:36 PM
Reading Judge Hardiman's concurrence, I wish Hillary luck in regulating firearms our of existence. Discussing the Heller opinion,
"A nineteenth century authority quoted by the Supreme Court in the paragraph preceding this conclusion should eliminate any doubt regarding the Court’s categorical approach: 'A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional.' Id. (quoting State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840)) (emphases added); see also Bliss v. Com., 12 Ky. 90, 91 (1822) (suggesting that a regulation that 'import[s] an entire destruction of the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves the state' would be plainly unconstitutional). Hence, a law that burdens persons, arms, or conduct protected by the Second Amendment and that does so with the effect that the core of the right is eviscerated is unconstitutional."
The last sentence says if all. Any statute or regulation that burdens the core 2A right is per se unconstitutional as it destroys the right. That's huge.
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Skinnyb82
This question is not Rhetorical
So why are the Federal Judges making rulings that are in my opinion Highly unconstitutional
Posted 09 September 2016 - 02:54 PM
It would be huge if there was any consistency or respect for 2nd Amendment within the judiciary. For every decision like this, there are dozens to the contrary, and SCOTUS will not enforce the 2nd to any more degree than they have. Reading between the lines of the Caetano concurrence, and directly addressed in Thomas' dissent of the Highland Park cert, is that SCOTUS does like like their own precedent and will not enforce it.The last sentence says if all. Any statute or regulation that burdens the core 2A right is per se unconstitutional as it destroys the right. That's huge.
Posted 09 September 2016 - 03:08 PM
Just magnifies the importantance of the next round of Federal and Scotus vacancies.
Posted 09 September 2016 - 05:48 PM
Just magnifies the importantance of the next round of Federal and Scotus vacancies.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Totally agree!
THIS ELECTION IS THE KEY! VOTE EARLY, VOTE OFTEN, IT IS THE CHICAGO WAY!
Posted 09 September 2016 - 07:54 PM
Reading Judge Hardiman's concurrence, I wish Hillary luck in regulating firearms our of existence. Discussing the Heller opinion,
"A nineteenth century authority quoted by the Supreme Court in the paragraph preceding this conclusion should eliminate any doubt regarding the Court’s categorical approach: 'A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional.' Id. (quoting State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840)) (emphases added); see also Bliss v. Com., 12 Ky. 90, 91 (1822) (suggesting that a regulation that 'import[s] an entire destruction of the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves the state' would be plainly unconstitutional). Hence, a law that burdens persons, arms, or conduct protected by the Second Amendment and that does so with the effect that the core of the right is eviscerated is unconstitutional."
The last sentence says if all. Any statute or regulation that burdens the core 2A right is per se unconstitutional as it destroys the right. That's huge.
Sent from my VS987 using TapatalkSkinnyb82
This question is not Rhetorical
So why are the Federal Judges making rulings that are in my opinion Highly unconstitutional
BUMP for Skinnyb82
Posted 10 September 2016 - 06:58 AM
Posted 10 September 2016 - 07:46 AM
Posted 10 September 2016 - 03:23 PM
According to Obama not hiring ex cons is inherently racist and I would argue that refusing to restore the gun rights of ex cons would equally inherently racist.
Posted 15 September 2016 - 07:21 AM
+1 times 500According to Obama not hiring ex cons is inherently racist and I would argue that refusing to restore the gun rights of ex cons would equally inherently racist.
Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:43 PM
Here is a link to the cert petition.
According to the SCOTUS docket, the response is due on February 6th.
Concealed carry is of no use to me because I don't carry a purse or wear a dress, and I'm not into secret advantage and unmanly assassination.