All Activity

more like "The two time back to back IMPEACHMENT.....CHAMPION......OF THE WORLD..........DONALD.......J........TRUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMP!!!!!!!"

Can you point to the spot in the constitution where it says your right to smoke shall not be infringed?

Trying to bring this back a bit... There appears to be a lot of old common law (colonial era and preceding) from England regarding the age of majority (traditionally 21) as well as simultaneous different ages for military service (sometimes as young as 12) and ages of consent (also sometimes as young as 12) (info sourced via wikipedia -- better sources or corrections are welcome). The UK and US now have the age of majority at 18. I am not sure from where the idea that all rights in our legal system must attach at the same moment comes. There are currently plenty examples including drinking, voting, smoking, age of consent etc that attach at different times, and the constitution specifies ages for senators and presidents explicitly. All that said, there may be every reason to argue that certain rights like self-defense should be tied to others like national defense and military service -- especially given the wording in the (non-limiting) preamble to the second amendment.

As usual, what was a good idea to protect those needing it has been perverted to protect those who don't deserve it and are using it to hide behind when they do their illegal and unconstitutional actions

The point is that the liberal socialists commies are saying folks under 18 are not mature enough to have guns but those as young as 16 are mature enough to vote, to have abortions, to make major decisions about permanent body modifications etc etc etc. Hypocrites and liars. Don't try to change the subject with a troll response

Wouldn't this mean if you are on a bicycle with a gun in a school zone or in a park, you are ok as long as you stay on the bicycle? Bicyclists riding on a highway are granted all of the rights (including right-of-way Article IX) and are subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle, with certain exceptions. [5/11-1502] https://rideillinois.org/safety/bike-laws/

I've been peeved by how often people drop the "to be" in a sentence, like "Trump needs impeached", or "My car needs repaired".

We are now past the printed committee deadlnes in both House and Senate, but with extensions typically given each Spring to quite a few bills in the Senate. Senate session, previously scheduled for today, has been cancelled and with a late-day start time in the House, little is expected when it comes to floor action. There are currently no bills of insterest on the House Calendar. The House is scheduled for 3:00 PM today. The Senate is not in. Next Days Scheduled House: 5/7/2024 Senate: 5/7/2024 House Calendar

Reserved for updates.

They could theoretically do that with unsigned vacate and remands every time a bad decision is rendered and the plaintiff seeks SCOTUS intervention, but they won't as it's not what they do...

I wonder if SCOTUS could have a blanket ban on a judge. IE any ruling coming from them automatically gets nullified, and retried.

Euler - Thanks for keeping these cases so up to date.

It has been opined numerous times that, until "qualified immunity" is at the very least modified (preferably removed), things won't change that much. These politicians and judges that flout the laws and other rulings so frequently won't change until THEY bear a financial burden for their actions.

Agreed. This has been one of the things that has irritated me for 30 years. Most people care so little about "getting things right" and that is one of the reasons we have these "inaccuracies" in the English language now. These include but aren't limited to ending a sentence with a preposition (to, for, at, etc.) or the improper use of adjectives and adverbs. How many of you have heard that commercial about fixing your transmission where they say "fix it fast and pay it off slow." "Fast" and "slow" should be "quickly" and "slowly". Every time I hear that blasted commercial, I cringe. As the son of a teacher and having subbed myself, it hurts to hear our language so poorly used by so many.

It would be interesting to see how that turns out. Be sure to have a friend with a GoPro go with you.

It's a red herring. The constitution does not apply on military facilities.

I believe that is a practice of a modern era, far removed from the traditions of the founding era that NYSRPA v Bruen tells us to follow.

Ever hear of the National Guard?

Was not your access to the weapon limited, especially outside of a war zone? In the U.S. could you keep it in your barracks, or room? Could you take it into town or across country?

Hmm 🤔. Just throwing this out there. Do not those UNDER 18 years of age have “Constitutional” Rights? Are “Constitutional” Rights only to those 18 years of age and older? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Freedom of assembly? Etc. Etc. Why - “Constitutionally” must citizens (note Citizens) wait until age 18 or older for 2A Rights? I consider myself to be a strict Constitutionalist.

They're old enough to be pawns for the elite, but not mature enough to care and make decisions for themselves.

At some point people arrested under these statutes have to be allowed to sue the people responsible for their enforcement. In this case, judges.

Even if it is GVR'd or flat out overturned via a legal precedent.........what enforcement does the SCOTUS have over any lower courts? This Festerbrook character and a couple other ding-a-lings sitting on the bench just appear to be flaunting their resistance right in front of the SCOTUS. Seriously..........what are the consequences to these judges for 'breaking the precedent'?

Essentially, he's just throwing a temper tantrum. He's approaching this from the viewpoint that unless the Supreme Court explicitly throws out Friedman, then it's still good law. That's wrong, of course, but he's going to play hardball until the Supreme Court tells him that Friedman doesn't apply anymore. Certainly, he'll just find some other excuse to uphold the ban even if Friedman is explicitly struck down, unless somehow we get a different panel if the case gets GVR'ed, but at this point it's hard to speculate how this is going to play out at the Supreme Court, anyway.

Yeah, exactly right. It is no longer your Grandpa and Dad's Democrat party