[RKV]

Some of Gura’s answers were a smoke screen as far as I can tell. What he needed to do was to 1) win this case and 2) setup for the next ones. What was said in oral argument is not going to be the true when certain facts and cases are looked into. Its going to be an “Oops, my bad!”

Let me give you one specific about registration which Gura mentioned in oral argument. If we get an individual right ruling (and this looks promising) then there’s no way that the Supes can OK registration later without throwing out stare decisis. They really don’t want to do that people. What am I talking about? Well, there has already been a ruling that states cannot license federal rights. Yep, its in the bag folks. So, all this bs in oral argument was pablum for Ginsberg and Breyer. Those two don’t know enough to know that they’ve been had. Heh.

“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.”
— MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)

[mad_as_he$$]

;-)

[B4Ranch]

Is the SCOTUS held by lower court stare decisis? No, so why are they hesitant to deal with a multiple issue case?

[An Old Man]

"this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.”

Sorry to be picky, but I thought that the feds simply protect rights not grant them. Except for maybe "the right to privacy".

Semper Fi
An Old Man