1 - 10 Next
wrong, the courts determine compliance with law... it is the task of the executive branch to enforce it. Even when courts find in contempt, it is still some marshall, part of the executive branch, that comes round with the dog and double barreled gun.....
A recent court case in San Diego found that the "may issue" process in California is not legal... but it, too, has been stayed pending possible appeal. The good news is that the sheriff of Orange COunty Calif has put on her reading glasses and read the writing on the wall... and changed that county to shall issue. I believe over four thousand people have applied for those permits in the month plus since that court decision. No other sheriff has followed her lead, though almost half of the sheriffs in thst state need to.
no, other laws prohibit felons from possession, and thus from carry. Not conected at all. "Shall issue" means that unless a person is restricted from gun possession through criminal or mental issues, the state MUST grant the permit. Age and residence are two more conditions for the carry permit.
no, the court does NOT determine what the Constitution says. The document itself does. What part of "the right... shall not be infringed" is in question? To REQUIRE some form of permit (takes time, personal appearance before some government official, and money to get one....) is an infringement. Years ago, the SCOTUS declared a very low priced "poll tax", to be paid prior to voting, unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed upon the universal right to vote. These days, a number of courts have declared voter ID laws an unnecessary and illegal infringement (never mind that EVERYONE of voting age already has some form of government issued ID, which will suffice for voting). But no, somehow firearms are not the same sort of right as is free speech, voting, right to assemble, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure..... THAT is what needs to end.
Fast and Furious in the Sand Box. Surprised? Not me.
they should have had the new laws prepared, like Chicago did, to enact within days of the old one being terminated. Its still their fault, failure, sellout. The old law is unconstitutiinal, that is settled. It is null, void, of no effect, under the laws of this country.
traitourous decision. He's already ruled the law unconstitutioinal. Now he's ordered that unconstitutional law to be enforced? Is he nuts? Or just threatened these past few days?
been ding that for years. I will not even route a flight through Chicago for a plane change, nor through New York or New Jersey. Don't want to risk getting forced to "take possession" of my lawfully transported firearms in checked luggage because of a late or missed flight, mechanical troubles, weather cancelling flights, etc. AND don't want a nickel of my fare going to those places for fees, taxes, extortion, etc.
what amuses me is that a number of the congresscritters supporting this amnesty bunkum are also in favour of raising the minimum wage to some outlandish figure, like $15/hour. If this is not an oxymoron it is only because those supporting both ARE morons.
describing reality is racist? Get a clue, dude.
1 - 10 Next