[marktwain]

It is uncertain if the Supreme Court will hear the case. It chooses to hear very few. The Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to pick what cases it will hear in the Judiciary act of 1891. Before that time, the court was required to hear all cases.

[Reno89519]

Has anyone recently tried to get their out-of-state constitutional rights respected in California?

[circlecity]

I’m not sure the the timing is right for this to go to the USSC now. We need art least one more conservative.

[i_robot73]

IMO, it’s futility to argue ‘rights’ once you’ve conceded the suppression thereof.

If you affirm that permits are required, what matters if they are may\shall??

Not that I’d expect the Left to allow a case where ONLY the phrase ‘...shall not be infringed’ to come before ‘em (hell, they couldn’t agree on the definition of ONLY when it came to ‘ONLY State exchanges’ in O’Care).

Especially as they perverted everything else w/ ‘penumbras’ and looking outside the U.S.

Govt would shit its pants if SCOTUS ruled, correctly, that any/all arms @ any time, in any fashion they wish to be bared. What OTHER Rights might The People realize are being suppressed\trampled?

[wastedyears]

Should the Judiciary Act be repealed?