Posted on 07/22/2008 4:08:44 AM PDT by PurpleMountains
It’s easy to see that the extreme, left-wing liberals who have run Washington, D.C. into the ground and established it as the murder capital of the country have no intention of following the letter and the spirit of the 2nd Amendment that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
what power does the SCOTUS have. can they have those who defy them fined, arrested etc???
Can they use the DOJ to act on their behalf?
... Indian Removal Act to be the humanitarian act Jackson claimed it to be. They fought the law by challenging it in the Supreme Court. In Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia (1831), the Supreme Court refused to hear the case on the basis that the Cherokee Nation did not represent a sovereign nation. However, in the case of Worcester vs. Georgia (1832) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee. The Supreme Court this time ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign thus making the removal laws invalid. The decision, rendered by Justice John Marshall, declared the forced removal of the Cherokee Nation to be illegal, unconstitutional and against treaties made. President Andrew Jackson, who had the executive responsibility of enforcement of the laws, stated, “John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.”
I am still waiting for the affected group/individual that will file an effective injunction against DC stopping these restrictions from going into effect until ruled upon by the DC circuit that originally ruled in Heller's favor.
Abortionists can get a ruling to stop any action they deem "restrictions" on abortion in 24 hours and stop such action from taking effect for years while being tried in the courts.
Why can't Heller (or his appointed surrogate) do the same here?
But I guess they don't learn from history.
I couldn’t agree more. Gun Control is absolutely a racist issue.
I think the Black Panthers openly carried weapons back in the late 60’s and that this is a reason for the DC gun ban.
Liberals want to make sure that black and Hispanic men have no way to defend themselves, and if they need to disarm a few white people in the process, that's a small price to pay.
All new machine guns are illegal. Machine guns manufactured before 1986 were grandfathered in and can still be legally transferred after the taxes have been paid on each transfer, but machine guns made after that cannot be owned by mere civilians under federal law because the federal government will no longer issue tax stamps for them.
Heroine can be had under the right circumstances for medical testing. Highly fissionable nuclear material can be had in certain instances for academic research. All sorts of things that are otherwise "illegal" can be obtained under special circumstances and with the right collection of forms, permissions and privileges, but that does not make them "legal".
Personally I think automatic weapons fall into that same category. And while you are of course free to do so, I personally don't think that chiming in every time it's mentioned to tell (usually with a few exclamations) people that it's not "technically illegal", seems useless and counterproductive to me. Most people can't have one. In many states (New Jersey, California, New York, Connecticut, Mass etc) they can't have one at all under any circumstances. That means for most people it's illegal.
Liberals want to make the world safe for communism and you can’t have communism if the populace is armed.
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.