[oceanview]

I'm not well versed on the subject enough to speculate. but even gun rights organization have been reluctant to toss this thing into the realm of the federal judiciary. remember, these are the guys who affirmed McCain/Feingold, who overturned the takings clause in the 5th amendment with the Kelo decision.

Texas doesn't want NY's guy laws, and they shouldn't. But NY doesn't necessarily want Texas' gun laws either. there is a balance to be struck here.

[robertpaulsen]

"these are the guys who affirmed McCain/Feingold, who overturned the takings clause in the 5th amendment with the Kelo decision."

Five justices defining the rights of every single citizen.

Since free speech includes nude dancing (obviously the framers's intent) then every state must allow it. Since homosexual sodomy is a U.S. Constitutional right to privacy issue, then every state must allow it. Abortion? States must allow it. No choice in the matter. You can't get away from it.

Five justices running the country. And people want those five clowns interpreting the second amendment for all of us?

Unreal. Utter stupidity.

[Ken H]

Remember, these are the guys who affirmed McCain/Feingold, who overturned the takings clause in the 5th amendment with the Kelo decision.

If such laws go unchallenged, they remain in force. Given that the governments (federal and local in these two examples) had already acted, what was the downside in taking them to court?

Texas doesn't want NY's gun laws, and they shouldn't. But NY doesn't necessarily want Texas' gun laws either.

Are not the citizens of both states entitled to the same RKBA, in your understanding of the Constitution?