1 posted on
03/20/2007 9:41:26 AM PDT by
Revtwo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
To: Revtwo
Thank goodness. My NRA $$ is paying off.
2 posted on
03/20/2007 9:43:42 AM PDT by
pissant
(http://www.gohunter08.com/)
To: Revtwo; Joe Brower
3 posted on
03/20/2007 9:44:33 AM PDT by
facedown
(Armed in the Heartland)
To: Revtwo
Wow, two courts in about a week actually recognizing the Constitution. Maybe there's hope after all.
4 posted on
03/20/2007 9:44:42 AM PDT by
oh8eleven
(RVN '67-'68)
To: Revtwo
WOW, a New Jersey judge up-holds 2nd Amendment. What's next?
5 posted on
03/20/2007 9:46:10 AM PDT by
geo40xyz
(Born a democRAT, Dad set me free in 1952: He said that I was not required to be a MF'ing democRAT)
To: Revtwo; bang_list
added the banglist keyword so the list can find it.
6 posted on
03/20/2007 9:47:11 AM PDT by
Petruchio
(Single, Available, Easy)
To: Revtwo
Cool! A double-barreled defeat for the gun-banning nuts on the Left.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
10 posted on
03/20/2007 9:51:17 AM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: Revtwo
The scope is very small, but the precedent is huge. The guy voluntarily relinquished firearms he had had on him during a domestic dispute. Four years later, NJ wrote a law denying the right to own a gun to anyone who had previously had a gun siezed or voluntarily relinquished a gun.
The immediate crisis is sort of an ex post facto: a man was denied his rights for an action he committed before the law depriving of his rights was written. Hence, the tiny scope: The NJ law isn't necessarily unconstitutional, since NJ may have a valid reason for its deprivation of rights. But what is huge is the courts recogniztion that the NJ deprives people of an actual right: to bear arms.
12 posted on
03/20/2007 9:52:01 AM PDT by
dangus
To: Revtwo
The courts are where the real power lies in determining the direction of the country.
Whether a particular Republican President is as pristinely conservative as would be desired is not nearly as important as who they get confirmed to the USSC.
The fact that the USSC is decidedly more conservative than when Dubya entered office sends a message to lower courts, and we are seeing their response to that message in these recent decisions.
Dubya has disappointed me in many ways, but Presidents are in power for eight years at most.
Judges are in power for life.
13 posted on
03/20/2007 9:52:01 AM PDT by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
To: Revtwo
UN-F'ING BELIEVABLE!!!!! In NJ of all places!!!!
Suddenly I feel faint.
14 posted on
03/20/2007 9:52:22 AM PDT by
tcostell
(MOLON LABE)
To: gc4nra
16 posted on
03/20/2007 9:53:46 AM PDT by
Blue Collar Republican
(I am the rightful father of Anna Nicole's money... er, I mean baby.)
To: Revtwo
Mr. Nappen is a treasure for us NJ residents. If not for his hard work and dilligence, we'd be disarmed state-wide by now. Given the current state of our elected officials, it's amazing this ruling has been rendered. Thank you Evan!
17 posted on
03/20/2007 9:54:24 AM PDT by
paulcissa
(Only YOU can prevent liberalism.)
To: Revtwo
First, Washington DC and now New Jersy.
[Has a massive dose of sanity been released on our courts????]
Libs will go into meltdown.
18 posted on
03/20/2007 9:54:30 AM PDT by
TomGuy
To: Revtwo
Didn't a Federal court already make in similar ruling within the past few weeks?
If so, wouldn't this ruling merely be symbolic?
20 posted on
03/20/2007 9:55:23 AM PDT by
HEY4QDEMS
(Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
To: Revtwo
WOW! Another individual right ruling along with striking down expo facto enforcement. Lovely.
24 posted on
03/20/2007 9:57:59 AM PDT by
beltfed308
(Rudy: When you absolutely,positively need a liberal for President.)
To: Revtwo
Hillary's reaction........
26 posted on
03/20/2007 9:59:23 AM PDT by
cowboyway
(My heroes have always been Cowboys)
To: Coleus; Cagey; Clemenza
27 posted on
03/20/2007 10:00:23 AM PDT by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
To: Revtwo
A good-news BTT. I am currently involved in a vigorous discussion over the 2nd Amendment with a fellow whose considered opinion is that the Constitution says whatever the courts say it says. "Living document" garbage. We'll see if that tune changes any...
To: Revtwo
31 posted on
03/20/2007 10:01:45 AM PDT by
rellimpank
(-don't believe anything the MSM states about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
To: Revtwo
Moonbats everywhere crying in corners.
36 posted on
03/20/2007 10:06:10 AM PDT by
wastedyears
("These colours don't run, from cold bloody war." - Steve Harris, Bruce Dickinson)
To: Revtwo
Well slap me silly and call me Willy! This happened in the People's Republic of Joisey?!!
40 posted on
03/20/2007 10:11:52 AM PDT by
4yearlurker
("Nothing is true,and everything is permitted"--7 th Satanic vow. Sounds like Liberalism!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson