Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Justices signal they're ready to make gun ownership a national right
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ConstitutionCowboy" data-source="post: 1036882" data-attributes="member: 745"><p>Gura opened the door wide with his answer to Sotomayor's question:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">I'd like to point out that Sotomayor talked of laws regulating the <strong>use</strong> of arms based on the Court not incorporating the Second Amendment. It wouldn't matter! Either she is ignorant or tried to make a point disingenuously. The Second Amendment doesn't cover the use of arms at all. That's why you'll probably never see a challenge to laws that say you can't shoot your guns in the middle of town except in self defense. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I found this exchange encouraging.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">~</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">~</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>Gura didn't get a chance to answer directly, but I think Scalia hinted he's ready to incorporate under the P&I clause. Gura certainly did get in that Slaughter-House needs to go, though, and the only hurdle mentioned was the 140 years S-H has been around. Being wrong for 140 years is a rather feeble excuse to continue to be wrong.[/indent]</p><p></p><p></p><p>The following backs up what I've been saying about <em>Heller</em> - that those "presumptive reasonable restrictions" were just that: Presumptive. Refer to what I highlighted in bold:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Scalia went out of his way to point out that those things like concealed carry mentioned in <em>Heller</em> as long standing laws, that "<em>those are matter that we didn't decide in Heller</em>."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This statement by Roberts really exposes the mind-set we too often see at all levels of government. I'd like to inform all in government that it isn't about the interests of the different levels of government. It's about the interests of We the People! That's the way <em>ALL</em> levels of government should be looking at this! What good is the protection of a right at one level of government if a different level can infringe upon the right? Infringed is infringed. Does it matter to your face if a federal agent slaps it or if your local sheriff slaps it?</p><p></p><p>Gura got the last word and it went unchallenged:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>My prediction: We'll get a not less than 5-4 and possibly as much as an 8-1 win, with a better than 50/50 chance of incorporation under the P & I clause coupled with a sure Due Process win as well. The RKBA being a definitive privilege and with the Second Amendment making it immune to government infringement, how can we lose? </p><p></p><p>My biggest disappointment in this whole process has been the disregard for Madison's reasoning why we need a bill of rights to begin with:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">An Excerpt: Mr. Madison from the <em>Congressional Record of 8 June, 1789</em>, debating the proposal of a Bill of Rights:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> </p><p></p><p>When you have such clarity from a Founding Father, how can there be any doubt? Maybe whomever rights the majority opinion will include it.</p><p></p><p>Woody</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ConstitutionCowboy, post: 1036882, member: 745"] Gura opened the door wide with his answer to Sotomayor's question: [indent] I'd like to point out that Sotomayor talked of laws regulating the [b]use[/b] of arms based on the Court not incorporating the Second Amendment. It wouldn't matter! Either she is ignorant or tried to make a point disingenuously. The Second Amendment doesn't cover the use of arms at all. That's why you'll probably never see a challenge to laws that say you can't shoot your guns in the middle of town except in self defense. [/indent] I found this exchange encouraging. [indent] ~ ~ [/indent] Gura didn't get a chance to answer directly, but I think Scalia hinted he's ready to incorporate under the P&I clause. Gura certainly did get in that Slaughter-House needs to go, though, and the only hurdle mentioned was the 140 years S-H has been around. Being wrong for 140 years is a rather feeble excuse to continue to be wrong.[/indent] The following backs up what I've been saying about [i]Heller[/i] - that those "presumptive reasonable restrictions" were just that: Presumptive. Refer to what I highlighted in bold: [indent] Scalia went out of his way to point out that those things like concealed carry mentioned in [i]Heller[/i] as long standing laws, that "[i]those are matter that we didn't decide in Heller[/i]."[/indent] This statement by Roberts really exposes the mind-set we too often see at all levels of government. I'd like to inform all in government that it isn't about the interests of the different levels of government. It's about the interests of We the People! That's the way [i]ALL[/i] levels of government should be looking at this! What good is the protection of a right at one level of government if a different level can infringe upon the right? Infringed is infringed. Does it matter to your face if a federal agent slaps it or if your local sheriff slaps it? Gura got the last word and it went unchallenged: [indent][/indent] My prediction: We'll get a not less than 5-4 and possibly as much as an 8-1 win, with a better than 50/50 chance of incorporation under the P & I clause coupled with a sure Due Process win as well. The RKBA being a definitive privilege and with the Second Amendment making it immune to government infringement, how can we lose? My biggest disappointment in this whole process has been the disregard for Madison's reasoning why we need a bill of rights to begin with: [indent]An Excerpt: Mr. Madison from the [i]Congressional Record of 8 June, 1789[/i], debating the proposal of a Bill of Rights: [indent][/indent][/indent] When you have such clarity from a Founding Father, how can there be any doubt? Maybe whomever rights the majority opinion will include it. Woody [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Justices signal they're ready to make gun ownership a national right
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom