Now they are after whatever they can ban.
An 80 year old blast from the Past, from the now anti-gun Chicago Tribune no less!
Posted on 12/08/2015 9:40:56 AM PST by Enlightened1
In the writings of the Founding Fathers it was understood that the individual should own weaponry on par with the exiting powers.( Looking for citations). An AR 15 or .308 rifle are pea shooters next to law enforcement and military assets.
Muslim Jihadists must really be disappointed to learn they won’t be allowed to use semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines in this community.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3369363/posts
First they aren’t now they are? Flip floppy again and again....
“Our rights are hanging by a thread.”
I hear ya, but I think it is better to say our rights are our rights and cannot be taken away. It is their very lives hanging by a thread as this will turn bloody before it is over.
Many states have laws pre-empting cities and counties from passing laws regulating guns. Tennessee is one of them.
Now they are after whatever they can ban.
An 80 year old blast from the Past, from the now anti-gun Chicago Tribune no less!
...and the “John Roberts is being blackmailed with adoption records” conspiracy theory lives on for another day.
How can locals and states violate what the court has ruled is a civil right?
Quite wrong. Not hearing a case is indeed a temporary positive ruling. The action in essence says "it is ok with us, until we decide otherwise".
The status now IMO is that any perhaps well-funded community organizers can continue to stack the local city councils and county boards and deprive the citizens of a significant 2dA protection.
You might know that inclusion of the 2dA protection was deemed essential to ratification of the proposed constitution. I.e., abridging the protection means it was all a shell game.
God trumps the SCOTUS.
Little Johnny Roberts and the SCROTUM stick it to the people once again.
They said that because no one for Miller showed up to present evidence of such use. They couldn't just assume what "everyone knows".
They declined to hear a case involving rules that are not uncommon. There's no change in the status quo.
True. IIRC, Miller died, and no one pled the case. I find it sad that a lawyer has to tell them water is wet for it to count, though.
"And not hearing a case is not the same thing as making a positive ruling."
"Quite wrong. Not hearing a case is indeed a temporary positive ruling. The action in essence says "it is ok with us, until we decide otherwise".
No it isn't quite wrong. An actual ruling is a binding decision. This is just not hearing a particular case. No change is made. There's nothing binding other jurisdictions. And the court is free to take up some other future case.
The status quo has changed. The Scotus has declined, and that will encourage other gun-grabbing locations to copy.
No change is made.
Exactly, the defendants may continue their actions.
Plaintiffs sought relief, not making a change in this case is a ruling against their interests.
There's nothing binding other jurisdictions.
Nor are other jurisdictions restrained from conducting the offending actions.
Agree. The Court said essentially that there was no evidence before them... And there wasn't because Miller was dead and his reluctant lawyer didn't bother to travel to DC. They did imply that had there been such evidence, they would have ruled for Miller. It may be the most dishonestly cited case by other courts there is. This highlights the distortions by other courts... http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/gun_control_dencite.htm
Thanks for that link!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.