Posted on 07/31/2024 1:21:55 PM PDT by rellimpank
U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan's 69-page opinion says he was compelled to rule as he did because of the Supreme Court's rulings in firearms cases, particularly the 2022 Bruen decision that expanded gun rights.
Sheridan's ruling left both 2nd Amendment advocates and the state attorney general planning appeals. The judge temporarily delayed the order for 30 days.
Pointing to the high court's precedents, Sheridan suggested Congress and the president could do more to curb gun-related violence nationwide.
“It is hard to accept the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are ‘off the table’ when frequently, radical individuals possess and use these same firearms for evil purposes,” he wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Judges are to judge according to the law not offer their political stance. This is why we are where we are as a society.
Still can't figure out how that is constitutional.
Typical liberal, upset at not being able to take people’s Constitutional rights away. Judge didn’t want to be overturned.
Wonder if the judge finds it hard to accept the 1st Amendment when frequently, radical D@mocrat politicians lie through their teeth for evil purposes?
These judges are exactly why there is a second amendment.
Round and round we go.
Now try this:
It is hard to accept the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that Freedom of Speech is largely protected when frequently, radical politicians label their political opponents as "threats" and "literally Hitler", using their speech for evil purposes.
New Jersey’s two senators plan to block [Dubya] judicial nomination [Peter Sheridan]
AP | 8/29/03
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972549/posts
“It is hard to accept the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are ‘off the table’ when frequently, radical individuals possess and use these same firearms for evil purposes,” he wrote.
That’s an individual evil person problem not a type of gun problem.
Rolling back unConstitutional infringements is not “expanding” gun rights...
They just can’t help themselves.
Yup. When I was a kid, my mom used to get her hair done at Saks 5th Avenue on 5th Avenue in Manhattan. For making a small boy wait with the ladies at the hairdresser, she used to take me to Ambercrombie & Fitch across the street, which was not a teen clothing retailer but a safari outfitter.
They had a full panoply of hunting rifles and shotguns, including .500 Nitro Express. If she had had the money & desire, she could have bought a firearm and ammo and carried it back out onto 5th Avenue. No one would have batted an eye, except maybe that it was a woman making the purchase.
We had effective kook and criminal control back then.
“Wonder if the judge finds it hard to accept the 1st Amendment when frequently, radical D@mocrat politicians lie through their teeth for evil purposes?”
____________________________________________________________
The “evil purposes” to which the 1st Amendment could be put are already regulated in civil and criminal law. Defamation, libel, slander, perjury, terrorist threats, hate speech, employment speech, etc., already have civil or criminal law sanctions.
And yet Illinois still languishes...
I could have told them that. With Cameltoe’s Caribbeaners taking over America, we’re gonna need ‘em. Those Venezuelan maggots sure are a mean bunch. They are already acting like commie “DemonRATS”.
He still wants to get invited to the cocktail parties but knew he would get bi$&# slapped by the appeals court or the Supreme Court.
He still wants to get invited to the cocktail parties but knew he would get bi$&# slapped by the appeals court or the Supreme Court.
“and the judge had to make a snarky remark”
well, it was either that or knowingly make an unconstitutional ruling that he knew was guaranteed to be overturned ...
Some of the "evil purposes" may be regulated, but dishonest politicians (for example) routinely make "promises" they do not intend to keep. And the regulation of free speech is generally not by means of prior restraint, which is the essence of gun control.
Our Constitutional rights aren't dependent on, or restricted by, the intentions, motivations, or actions of criminals, dipwad.
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.