Second Amendment cases up early

SCOTUSBLOG ^ | August 21, 2009 | Lyle Denniston

[neverdem]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58295

KKK lynching stats

[Mojave]

Thus "private self defense" and "partial orders" of local governments, that is when functioning as a posse commitatus. aka "sheriff's posse".

Gotta source for that assertion?

[Mojave]

Barron v. Baltimore was correct, for 1833, Pressor was incorrect in relying on it in 1886, via the 1873 "Slaughter House case . For you see the Constitution had been changed in the meantime.

False. There had been no judicial legislation twisting and "incorporating" the Second Amendment in 1886. Or since.

[Mojave]

Which is exactly what those who wrote, passed and ratified the 14th amendment did

Utterly false. And sourceless, natch.

[Joe Brower]

[Dead Corpse]

Don’t feed the troll...

[El Gato]

False. There had been no judicial legislation twisting and "incorporating" the Second Amendment in 1886. Or since.

The Constitution wasn't changed between 1833 and 1873?

The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were all passed during that period, actually all were between 1865 and 1870.

[Mojave]

The Constitution wasn't changed between 1833 and 1873?

There had been no judicial legislation twisting and "incorporating" the Second Amendment between 1833 and 1873. Or since.

[FreedomPoster]

>>Remember a few years back where children’s doctors were asking “Is there a gun in the house?”

I had it happen, on a questionnaire during a routine check up for my son. When the doctor came in, I asked if he was a household safety expert, and why weren’t they also asking about swimming pools and other hazards that cause more accidental deaths than firearms. I then told him I thought the question likely represented a boundary violation.

He got really defensive, really fast.

[budwiesest]

It's called judicial activism.

Wouldn't failure by the court to protect the right of the people from infringements by various states constitute judicial 'in-activism'?

[Mojave]

Courts aren’t supposed to be “active” in creating laws from the bench or in altering the Constitution.

[FlyingEagle]

So true this is not a government that is staking its future on being re-elected. They do not care.

[DMG2FUN]

The leftist aka progressive gun haters have forced the pro right to bear arms side into using reasons for a right. You know reasons like defense, hunting, collecting, and of course target shooting.
There is only one reason for a right. It is your right.