[Pitchfork]

You are exactly correct. The SCOTUS hasn't ruled since the 30's and that rulling held advanced a state's right position. In the absence of further rulings that is the precedent and so you have neatly supported my contention that--as it stands--the Court's position is contrary to the NRA's.

[Jhoffa_]

I will say this, you're one of the more polite disrupters we have had in some time.

Now, please.. The part of the Constitution that grants fedgov this power to control firearms?

[jwalsh07]

United States vs Emerson

Here's the bad news Pitch. Now take this to class and engage your students in an honest discussion of the ruling.

Of course you should read it first. We wouldn't want you to appear , shall we say, less than well read?

[Jhoffa_]

No bad words, porno pictures.. logical (if incorrect) arguments..

You're a world class disrupter Pitch..

[LexBaird]

You are exactly correct. The SCOTUS hasn't ruled since the 30's and that rulling held advanced a state's right position.

Um, no it didn't. I suggest you revisit the ruling and see what was actually said, not what the Brady bunch spin is. The case was about sawn-off shotguns being allowed to citizens. The claim was that they could be regulated because they were NOT military grade weapons, thus not useful to a "militia". Under this argument, private ownership of military assault rifles would be protected, much to the dismay of DiFi.

IIRC, the case was remanded back to the lower court, where the plaintiff died before it could be argued.

But, I notice you ignore my argument regarding the registration issue.