We are within striking distance for yellow today!
Keep Free Republic Alive with YOUR Donations!
Make a difference.
PLEASE Contribute Today!
Woo hoo!! Less than $600 to the yellow!! We can do this.
Posted on 02/25/2014 10:10:08 AM PST by neverdem
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to wade into the politically volatile issue of gun control by leaving intact three court rulings rejecting challenges to federal and state laws.
The court's decision not to hear the cases represented a loss for gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association, which was behind two of the challenges.
The first case involved a challenge by the NRA to a Texas law that prevents 18-20 year olds from carrying handguns in public. It also raised the broader question of whether there is a broad right under the Second Amendment to bear arms in public.
The second NRA case was a challenge to several federal laws and regulations, dating back to 1968, that make it illegal for firearms dealers to sell guns or ammunition to anyone under 21...
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Crooked lawyers with black robes.
With the number of rounds of ammo they have bough over the last few years, they certainly could shoot us all many times over, especially if we stood still.
Also, note that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had officially clarified in the congressional record that the 14th Amendment applied the 2nd Amendment to the states. See the 2nd Amendment in Bingham's discussion roughly in the middle of the 2nd column of the page at the following link.
Appendix to the Congressional Globe
And didn't shoot back.
Free people don’t need to ask permission.
Aren’t those children grown by now? How old are they?
The fix is in?
That's essentially the Congress's approach:
I believe that federal law currently prohibits the sale of handguns or ammo for them to anyone under 21.
“The second NRA case was a challenge to several federal laws and regulations, dating back to 1968, that make it illegal for firearms dealers to sell guns or ammunition to anyone under 21...”
Nothing in there about handguns, that is what my comment was about.
It may be a law in some states, but it isn’t federal.
The Court often denies cert repeatedly on some issues before eventually taking up the issue in the right case.
Thanks for the link!
Legislatures can also make any law beyond the jurisdiction of the courts, which they create and fund.
Right, but I was commenting on how the technique of letting subordinates run amok and then take no interest in restraining them is also employed by our congress.
I'm fairly certain that's true.
Obviously at least 6 justices didn’t think there was anything to decide and that the lower court was right.
I don't thick that's true. Anthony Kennedy is big on individual rights. He was in the majority in Heller and McDonald. I believe it's split 4 - 4. Neither side trusts Roberts now, IMHO.
bkmk
The court will decline any case that strengthens gun rights.
They accept all cases where they can weaken them.
The US courts are no longer on our side.
Some perspective here, folks. It took SC(R)OTUS over 70 years to take on Heller from the last seminal 2A case which was Miller.
As it stands, the really interesting case is the one in the 9th circus. That one is not ripe for an appeal to SC(R)OTUS until we see what happens en banc. If it stands en banc, then I think we’ll have a day in court.
Heller notwithstanding, I’m not a fan of the go-to-court strategy. Trusting our liberties to 9 political hacks in black muumuus just doesn’t appeal to me.
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.