Welcome to obama's world, where the constitution does not exist. Therefore there is no such word as "unconstitutional".
Doesn't Heller make Feinstein's Proposed Legislation Unconstitutional?
- Thread starter Werewolf
- Start Date
I think the constitution makes Feinstein's proposal unconstitutional.
Did anyone else notice that those proposed bans in Illinois actually started out by referencing Heller in an attempt to justify themselves? That's the special kind of crazy we're facing...
Did anyone else notice that those proposed bans in Illinois actually started out by referencing Heller in an attempt to justify themselves? That's the special kind of crazy we're facing...
Scalia’s establishment take on ‘gun control’ should be no surprise to gun owners
[The 2008 opinion he wrote for the majority in the landmark District of Columbia v Heller case made that clear, causing no small amount of consternation among gun rights advocates. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” Scalia asserted. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:...]
http://www.examiner.com/article/sca...n-control-should-be-no-surprise-to-gun-owners
[The 2008 opinion he wrote for the majority in the landmark District of Columbia v Heller case made that clear, causing no small amount of consternation among gun rights advocates. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” Scalia asserted. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:...]
http://www.examiner.com/article/sca...n-control-should-be-no-surprise-to-gun-owners
Only the mandatory checks done locally until NICS was up and running. See Printz v. US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States
This is actually an area where we may make strides in the near future. The Progressives are making excellent headway in refusing to enforce federal laws or mirroring state laws regarding immigration (so called sanctuary cities) and marijuana possession. Many conservative states can follow suit by refusing to enforce gun laws and other populace control efforts by the feds. With an already overburdened system, it will be difficult for them to enforce these laws themselves. Nine times out of ten, the feds pick up where local and state agencies provide the initial call. Without those calls, the feds will have plenty of time to polish their shoes instead.
Not an issue for them. Just as Obama and his Progressive pals want to divide and conquer in all manner of legislation, so they will do with the media. Special exemptions will be carved out for them (so long as they continue not biting the hand that feeds them) and they'll eliminate the competition from small media outlets, blog services and individuals on the internet. Left as the only game in town, they'll reap the rewards from fat ad revenues and a captive audience. Selling the news isn't about integrity or truth, it's about money.
As far as DiFi and Obama's bills being a violation of Heller v. DC etc., they could care less. They have plenty of mouthpieces in and out of gov't that will say it ain't so, then drag it out in the courts until they get the makeup of the SCOTUS bench remade in their own image.
Correct, SCOTUS ruled the right to KEEP was in deed secured. It was narrowly focused to the home(i.e. they did not rule on BEAR). The BEAR case is looking good. Like I said, it's currently sitting in the 7th District of Appeals, and SCOTUS should uphold the decision(you cannot outright ban carry either - choose concealed, open, or both; no carry is unconstitutional).
Exactly right. It is the actual text of the Second Amendment that makes Feinstein's proposal unconstitutional. No Supreme Court decision can alter the text of the Constitution. (Quiz: in which branch does the power to amend the Consitution rest? Hint: not in the Judiciary and not in the Executive.)
Yeah, I respected Scalia until I read his frankly idiotic comments on the subject. Even Scalia is flat, dead wrong. If memory serves he used contemporary comments of the founders to water down the Second Amendment guarantee. Such research can be enlightening when the actual text is in doubt, but cannot in any way be used to alter the text that is actually there and ratified by the states. "Shall not be infringed" leaves simply no wiggle room whatsoever. Any regulation of firearms whatsoever necessarily and intrinsically must "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms.
Certainly they get it! That is the whole and explicitly acknowledged point!
For that matter the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments already are summarily violated, to name only one example of many, every single time you fly. I am a professional pilot, in which capacity I have the exquisite pleasure of traveling weekly on the airlines. As I approach the federally mandated security checkpoint (entirely within the sovereign state in which the airport resides) I read federal signs informing me that I may be arrested if I utter a proscribed joke within the hearing of any of the twenty or so blue-shirted federal officers standing nearby. On the same federal sign is the instruction that carrying arms (or even a water bottle, for crying out loud!) will subject me to summary confiscation and even arrest. Next I prepare my person, papers, and effects for unreasonable search and seizure absent any warrant issued upon oath or affirmation for probable cause. Next I present my federally mandated identification to one of the blue-shirted federal officers for inspection to obtain his permission to go peaceably about my business - without which permission I may not on pain of summary arrest. During taxi out I listen for the umpteenth time to various announcements that federal law (not state law or airline company policy) imposes stiff penalties if I do this or that, and even requires that I obey all crewmember instructions (this too would be perfectly fine if it were merely airline policy as a condition for flying on their airplanes). All of this necessarily deprives me of liberty without due process of law.
Regrettably all too true. The Executive branch has no power, by executive order or any other means, to amend the Constitution. Ladies and gentlemen, if the people, or merely their stupidly elected masters in Washington, wish to circumvent the protections of the Constitution, there is only one legal way to do so: by Constitutional amendment! Any other method whatsoever, whether federal law, executive order, Supreme Court decision, or what have you - is utterly lawless! The relevant question, one for which I have no satisfactory answer, is: why do a free people permit frank, despotic usurpation of their God-given and Constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty right out in the open and under their noses?
Because governments of all type and regardless of good intentions are inherently power grabbers. Human nature and practical considerations make it so that any people subject to governmnet will put up with a whole lot of BS before a limit is reached and they replace their government (I believe it was T. Jefferson that said something to that effect 200+ years ago). Eventually, the limit is always reached and every government is replaced.
If you are specifically asking about the USA - the limit just hasn't been reached yet.
I am afraid you are right.
Similar threads
