[Roscoe]

Plaintiffs not only seek to have this court declare the Gun Control Law unconstitutional without the requisite showing, but urge as a ground that the Gun Control Law violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The short answer to this contention is supplied in plaintiffs' own brief. As plaintiffs concede, it has been held that the Second Amendment is not a limitation upon the states. (Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 [1886].) Further, the United States Supreme Court has declined to hold that the first ten amendments of the Constitution were all made applicable to the states through the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Adamson v. People of State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 91 L.Ed. 1903 [1947].) In the conceded absence of any contrary authority, the court rejects plaintiffs' claim that the Gun Control Law violates the Second Amendment.

Grimm v. City of New York, 56 Misc.2d 525 (1968)

Poor, poor you.

[Dead Corpse]

Already refuted on numerous occassions Roscoe. Too bad you can't do better.

[Dead Corpse]

You don't WANT to get it. You would rather play the petty tyrant and give your support to legislating from the bench. The Grimm decision you just posted CREATED authority to ban guns where it ADMITS there was no Constitutional authority to do so. More "penumbras" and "emanations" crap. The general welfare clause does not extend to negate other Rights secured to the people, boy. This is exactly the kind of bullsh!t being foisted on us by actvist judges that "We the People" are getting awefully damn tired of.

Don't be on the wrong side of that line when we finally have enough of your BS and break out the tar and feathers

[Dead Corpse]

Your reading assignment for tonight. You'll probably flunk anyway, but you may as well try.