Posted on 11/08/2018 10:09:02 AM PST by marktwain
So does this overturn the 1775 case of General Gage v. the towns of Lexington and Concord?
“Trump needs to keep draining the judicial swamp...”
Yes, and so someone should “trip” Ginsberg again! As they say, the third time is the charm!
Anti-American, anti-COTUS judges must be removed from our benches. Period.
Obamites and Clintonites, I guess, unless there was a dissenter in the bunch. The plaintiffs should go to an en banc hearing or straight to the SCOTUS. I would pick en banc first, since SCOTUS won’t generally hear a case unless the ruling conflicts with one or more rulings from another district. En banc would allow more time for such a conflicting ruling to show up.
We don't particularly need a replacement. If the court hears the case and she's still recuperating, it will be an 8-person court that hears the argument. Of those 8 folks there are 5 sane, and 3 insane judges, so it's a win.
Violates McDonald v. City of Chicago
This will go straight to the Supreme Court.
.
This foolish idea has already been defeated by SCOTUS.
I’m guessing the first step will be for the 1st Circuit to rehear the case en banc (a full panel, vice 3 judges). If they reach the same ruling, then on the SCOTUS.
apparently some places you are not even allowed to own guns even in your own home
Maryland: Cops Shoot Man to Death In His Home For Resisting Gun Confiscation
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3703893/posts
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms within their homes, shall not be infringed.
Militias only operate within the home, right? LOL
Here you can transport it in a vehicle unloaded away from where anyone is sitting, like the locked car trunk.
You are probably not a judge so how you read it doesnt affect many lives.
You read about this?
I take it as “To keep” to mean to have them in your home to keep them there,and “bear arms” is take them out in public and be seen, and not be hassled. That’s my two cents worth.
It’s a summary judgement.
The court and the Appeals court didn’t even think the case should be heard!
That makes no sense: it’s a Federal right and Federal courts should weigh in on just what are the ‘reasonable’ restrictions localities can place on 2nd Amendment.
This is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
These 3 clowns should be prohibited from "legislating" outside of an outhouse.
How convenient to let the bad guys take over everything in the area, as long as they don't go into the houses. So, when you go out to do anything, the bad guys can shoot you, but you can't shoot back. What a concept. Why didn't the founding fathers think of this?
.
>> “Federal courts should weigh in on just what are the ‘reasonable’ restrictions localities can place on 2nd Amendment.” <<
“Shall not be infringed” means that no restrictions are permissable. All gun possession laws fail that clause.
.
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.