Tuesday, July 14, 2009
|
|
Soto Ducks on Guns
|
|
Posted by:
Jillian Bandes at
11:51 AM
|
She relied on the archaic case of Presser v. Illinois when dealing with 2nd amendment issues, but said she hadn't read Presser in a while or "analyzed the issue thoroughly" when questioned about its content. And this is how she reached the opinion that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to states???
|
|
|
...It's as simple as that. |
|
|
...and lots of ammo. While you can. Might need them. |
|
Q and A? Did you understand a bloody word? Of course not.
"Scalia wrote that the right he was announcing, as with other constitutional rights, "is not unlimited." The ruling should not "cast doubt," he added, on restrictions such as barring possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill or forbidding carrying arms near schools or in government buildings. He also indicated that the use of certain types of weapons could be restricted without running afoul of the Second Amendment.
But the majority did not define a standard of review for judging which restrictions are or are not constitutional, and it did not specifically rule that the Second Amendment applies to the states -- a step that the Court has taken in the past to ensure that other parts of the Bill of Rights limit state as well as federal restrictions on individuals."
So, your nutsy gun rights are not that clear cut, not even to Scalia. |
|
|
...the pursuit of happiness. See, most of us don't need a legal statute to make things clear. We have an unfortunate mental condition called "common sense." |
|
|
No dems own guns? liar. I know plenty of dems that do. |
|
|
|
[["Scalia wrote that the right he was announcing, as with other constitutional rights, "is not unlimited." The ruling should not "cast doubt," he added, on restrictions such as barring possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill or forbidding carrying arms near schools or in government buildings. He also indicated that the use of certain types of weapons could be restricted without running afoul of the Second Amendment.
But the majority did not define a standard of review for judging which restrictions are or are not constitutional, and it did not specifically rule that the Second Amendment applies to the states -- a step that the Court has taken in the past to ensure that other parts of the Bill of Rights limit state as well as federal restrictions on individuals."
So, your nutsy gun rights are not that clear cut, not even to Scalia.]]
Uh, darlin', neither was Scalia clear in the Heller decision on what he meant by "dangerous and unusual weapons". Your hoplophobia probably compels you and your idiotic liberal ilk to conclude "assault weapons" when he may very well have been thinking bazookas and hand grendades.
And if there's anything "nutsy" here, it's your abiding disdain for the right to keep and bear arms, which men who are way superior to you intellectually sought to enshrine constitutionally and re-affirm in the Heller decision. Whether you like it or not, guns are here to stay: handguns, long guns, and so-called "assault weapons". We will NOT disarm:
http://www.joebrower.com/RKBA/RKBA_FILES/ESSAYS/Memo_on_Arm s_&_Freedom.pdf
|
|
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1214582490.shtml
Add to this the fact that at least one appellate jurisdiction, the 9th Circuit, has expressly incorporated the 2nd to the states through the 14th, the trend seems clear: the 2nd Amendment, if it doesn't already bind the states, will do so in the very near future. |
|
|
|