Posted on 06/15/2023 12:20:01 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
+1
The “Judge” is a Traitor.
Not true, the 14th Ammendment codified it 8n the States.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS, IT WRITES DOWN INHERENT GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
LOL!
She is 88 years (senile) old.
The old bitty should retire and leave us alone!
Nonsense. Where did the 14th do so?
Incorporation of the BOR is a Scotus fabrication equal in outrage to Wickard, Roe, and Obergefell.
It was the reasoning used by Thomas I’m zBraun last year.
Prove it.
“Liberals believe that the Constitution is “living and breathing document””
Even though it is locked in an airtight vacuum? :)
Why is an 88 year old senile fool deciding cases on our sacred constitutional rights?
An Amendment overrides the original text in all cases.
The Bill of Rights formally recognizes rights that we have that are PRE-EXISTING. That means we still have them even without the BOR. It also means, as I’ve asserted before, that the Second Amendment applies to everyone on the planet.
Well....except that the Second Amendment prohibits infringements on a pre-existing right. Wouldn’t the 2nd obviate the newer infringement?
overrides the Bill of Rights / does not interfere with the constitution / parents have no rights to raise their kids...
On and on, same old tired flimsy crap that the prog media supports and sits in front of TV cameras and make frowny faces at anyone claiming their rights to actually be their rights.
All 'rights" are granted via the deep state, just ask them.
Especially this one...
Reminds me of janet reno, just more of the same prog crap.
.
Hopefully, The Supremes smack this dipshit into place.
Funny, the Yankees told the Rebs the same damn thing.
The hell it does!
They can regulate guns on Indian reservations.
(actually, they don’t — never assume any state or federal law applies when you’re on an Indian reservation)
I know that very few read the article before they comment, but if you had, you would have read that she was one of four who were in the minority in the losing end of the case that decided 11-4 that a non-violent felon should not be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Since this is potentially a very far reaching decision, overturning a portion of the 1968 GCA (which retroactively prohibited all felons from possessing a firearm0 then it will go to the SC.
Since this is the en banc decision, the next step is the SC. So will the state that is pursuing the case against the defendant appeal to the SC and take the chance that the SC will overturn this law?
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.