Yeah....well.....Biden's not getting my guns OR the name of my optometrist.
Posted on 12/01/2021 11:11:33 AM PST by rellimpank
During oral arguments earlier this month in the most important Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in years, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett seemed especially interested in where lines around restricting guns in public spaces should be drawn. Should the Second Amendment guarantee individuals the freedom to carry concealed weapons in a courthouse or in a stadium? How much weight should the Court give to the density of the community in which the firearms are to be carried? Does the amount of crime favor or disfavor gun owners?
Critically, and missed in the wider discourse around the case, Paul Clement, the attorney for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, opened the door to resolving the case by looking at the Court’s past First Amendment jurisprudence and applying it to gun rights. Contrary to what Clement argued, though, framing the guns case through a First Amendment lens reveals that the Court has drawn clear and workable lines that augur for common sense regulations. If the Supreme Court were to hold gun owners to the same standards it holds people seeking to take part in protected speech and assembly, New York’s current restrictions on concealed carry would actually survive in some modified form. If that doesn’t happen, then the Court’s conservatives would be elevating the status of the Second Amendment above First Amendment protections for the first time ever.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Not if a “wise Latino” has her way.
The Second Amendment SHOULD be held in higher regard than the First. The First is meaningless without the Second.
And the Tenth Amendment should be the most important of all.
.
Roberts tells Kavanaugh what to do.
Clear and obvious
.
the right to bear arms
is not restricted to being just inside your bathroom
Meanwhile the violent libtards at Slate are just fine with controlling speech online.
The whole premise that any amendment can be elevated above any other is logically flawed. The bill of rights negate the ability of government from taking people’s rights. Built into the premise of this article is the concept that rights can be partially taken from the people by the government, and thus some can be taken more than others.
did you hear Judge Starr last night on Laura’s show?
He said that there are SIX Justices on Supreme Court who are originalists — ever Roberts is an originalist.
-PJ
After all, the Founding Fathers never imagined the internet or mass media. Therefore, I guess that for the newspapers to exercise their freedom of press, they must return to hand powered printing presses like existed at the time of the Founders.
Anything more, and the press and media needs to have a waiting period of two weeks for any story they want to print, AFTER they have demonstrated a true need for it.
Isn’t the First Amendment dead already?
America has no Free Press. Religion has ceded all to government and invalidated itself, and the People only assemble to steal flat screen TVs.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
This government is clearly NOT on a path toward citizen’s
rights at this time. Instead it is willing to put people
under house arrest for months at a time.
All these justices need to do is look at Australia and
Europe, realize as we do that the actions there are
something our own leaders wouldn’t mind implementing
here, and also a populace that is well armed would make
that a lot harder.
I’m not kidding myself, about what may happen.
More ‘reasoned’ gun control on deck?
The CDC and the NIH have both gone rogue.
The Medical Community has lost its collective mind.
Law enforcement seems willing to do just about anything it
is instructed to do.
The President has gone rogue.
The Justice Department has gone rogue.
The FBI has gone rogue.
The Senate and House have gone rogue.
Governors, County and City Officials, schools... rogue.
Okay SCOTUS. Your move.
ZUBY:
@ZubyMusic
·
Nov 22
This may sound hyperbolic, but the USA’s second amendment could be the one thing standing between the world’s population and complete global tyranny.
https://twitter.com/theodorus_VII/status/1462780410065264644
“Firearms clearly present a risk to public safety. “
Clearly biased, NOT based on facts, science.
Pocket knives, baseball bats, CARS, fists, all present the same clear and present danger and are treated differently.
The typists comments are irrelevant.
I stopped reading after this line.
Now back to patient care.
Good idea. The Human Declaration on Human Rights is a noble document. But with no right to self-defense in it there are no rights in practice. It’s mere posturing.
Universal Declaration you idiot!
Yes.
The 2nd Amendment provides the final guarantee for all the others.
Yeah....well.....Biden's not getting my guns OR the name of my optometrist.
All governments tend toward tyranny.
That is why I always advocate cutting all taxes and reducing all government.
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.