Flynn

The courts have been ignoring the 'common use' test established in Miller for many, many decades, even after Heller echoed it again. I have to feeling the current SCOTUS is done allowing that to happen.

By using UPS you grant them the authority to open and inspect any package https://www.ups.com/media/en/terms_service_gnd_pr.pdf

Don't obliterate the existing one, just stamp the new one like importers and parts kit builders do.

I agree, places like New York, California and Hawaii are bound to provide far better cases to take up the court ladder. NY is already paving the road in haste to nationwide precedent cases.

I guess that is why they are a comedian, I'm betting very few actually do seatbelt after a crash, most obvioulsy do it before the crash, the duration of time before the crash is bound to vary significantly from shortly before to as soon as they got in the car. The fact remains not every self defense scenerio requires an instant draw followed by an instant discharge as fast as you can, just like every vehicular crash doesn't require you seatbelt before you put it in drive. In fact I'm betting that in a majority of cases brandishing the firearm is enough to likely difuse the situation without a discharge. It would be interesting to see real world stats on how many times CC holders and officers draw their weapon in self defense with that alone defusing the situtaion without the need to actually discharge a round. We already know that only about 27% of all police will ever fire their firearm in the line of duty during their entire career, just a guess, probably close to 100% of them drew their weapons at some point and that was enough. Of course there are times where seconds matter and a round in the chamber will make the difference, but that doesn't mean that someone the chooses to not carry a round in the chamber is stupid, just like someone that chooses a 38 compact with 10 rounds to carry over a full sized 45 with 15 isn't stupid, or someone who chooses to carry a semi-auto isn't stupid vs the guy that carries a wheel gun.

All this "I don't understand why they would want to carry like that" or "carrying like that isn't beneficial" or "open carry is stupid" sounds just like the anti-guners "why do you need a gun" or "you dont need" excuses. It's a right, critiquing every little detail of how anyone else exercizes it, to me is belittling the right. Exercise the right how you feel comfortable doing it and let others exercise it like they feel comfortable doing and move on.

With the current SCOTUS ruling repeating that the 2n is a civil right subject to the new test, there is technically standing in Federal court already for FOID, but chances are Federal courts will kick it back to state to tinker around with for a bit.

We all know (or at least should) the "Occam Razor" answer to that, the 2nd is an individual right outside and removed from the scope of the Legislative militia constraints found in Section 8.

Spelled out in black and white, no... Implied and likely based on other period papers by those same people that were involved in the formation of the country, yes. The 2nd specifies no such thing, to even make that claim is beyond silly. Serously where do you see that in the 2nd? You are once again trying to cut an paste parts of the Constitution outside their defined categories and apply them to other categories, that is just silly. You can't take a codified limit of Congressional powers in the Constitution specifically categorized as a Legislative power limit and proclaim it to be an enumerated Individual right limit in the Constitution, anymore than you can take a power granted to Legislative branch and declare that power is a right of every Individual, that is just being silly again. Legislative constraints and powers in the Constitution are not applicable to be applied to Individial rights, apple and oranges. Again, you are proclaiming a clearly defined Legislative power limit clearly categorized in the Constitution as a limit on the Legislative branch is somehow a limit on an Individual right, that is an epic jump in mental gymnastics.

It's by design to give them an easily way to revoke your 2nd rights entirely...

Heller- "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" All the while you still trying to limit the 2nd to militia activity or Legislative constraints when they may call upon the militia, while arguing upon the debunked fallacy that the 2nd is a militia right and not an individual right.

A limited congressional power to use the militia within a limited scope does not equate to that limited scope being the sole purpose and limits of the militia itself, it's simply a limit on when Congress may call the militia to their bidding, it does not define or limit the militia itself.

"The bill put forward Friday would also ban carrying firearms on private property by default, unless the property owner installs signage permitting guns or has otherwise expressed consent to guns being permitted" That combined with all their 'public' spaces is pretty much a blanket ban across the state, no way that passes court muster in regards to a right, but they will do what they do knowing it will take time to work through the courts...

I wish that when it comes to lawsuits against government agencies that they should not be able to so simply attempt to moot a case with a too clever by half policy or legislative change that they are fully capable of reversing with no consequences against the original plantiff or anyone else once the case is mooted/dismissed. The courts should simply not allow it to be mooted (prefered) and/or the court should summary rule in favor of the defendant by default on a motion to moot when they reverse course, so there is some accountability placed on the government.

Well he is rabid anti-2nd so I guess we are in agreement on her likely 2nd views.