Posted on 10/31/2009 6:17:53 AM PDT by SHAWSBLOG
A New Jersy appeals court has concludedthat Americans have no Second Amendment right to buy a handgun
(Excerpt) Read more at jkshaws.wordpress.com ...
Armed slaves fight back.
In other words they have chosen to disregard the Constitution.
It’s a bad heading. They didn’t deny the right to buy handguns. They required a permit first, which to me is an “infringement”.
Still a very dangerous thing. Surely this will be appealed.
Joisey-ites hafta rent or lease their handguns?
That Judge needs to be helped into retirement.
As long as we still have our Constitutional right to free health care, I’m OK with that!!
(That was sarcasm folks. Really. How many readers of first sentences only will respond with a flame?)
I hear you loud and clear. I'll bet in the copy of the "Constitution" that those judges have, that right is listed next to the right to have an abortion.
The 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution and abortion isn’t.
Yet the challenges to the 2nd Amendment seem to be unending.
Yes abortion has been challenged since Roe V Wade but if the number of court cases on abortion matched the cases on ‘gun control’ the DC idiocracy would be livid.
As long as we still have our Constitutional right to free health care, I’m OK with that!!
(That was sarcasm folks. Really. How many readers of first sentences only will respond with a flame?)
Ha ha! You forgot the “Right to an Abortion”. And “Freedom from Religion”. I carry my copy of the Constitution with me at all times, and so far, NOBODY has been able to locate those “RIGHTS”!
Heinrich Himmler
>>“Freedom from Religion”. I carry my copy of the Constitution with me at all times, and so far, NOBODY has been able to locate those “RIGHTS”!
I was discussing this with a liberal last week. I showed him the 1st Amendment and asked him to show me the separation clause. He pointed to the “establishment” clause, which says nothing about separation.
I then pointed to the “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” part which specifically forbids Congress from making any law that stops a prayer or religious expression. He read it and said, “I’m not sure what that means. You’re wrong about it.”
You just can’t fix that kind of stupid!!
These elite SOB’s are just gonna keep on pushing until one day very soon, the DO-DO is gonna hit the fan.
I'm afraid the horse has already left the barn, buddy.
Civil War required people to buy their own gun to go to war!
Actually, the SCOTUS was in a bind with Heller, because their rulings are based on the cases before them, and Heller was too small to make a sweeping decision, and so would be open to all kinds of challenges in the future.
So they used Heller to set up the solid framework for a future case, which is going to be McDonald v. Chicago. It is a much “meatier” case, because it legally goes back to the fundamental gun laws of the 20th Century, and also covers municipal, State and federal law.
McDonald v. Chicago is going to be a “Triple Whopper w/Cheese” decision, and the decision is going to take a year to write, as it will be the definitive 2nd Amendment text in every legal textbook in the US, perhaps for the next hundred years. It will probably be the most important opinion issued by the Roberts Court.
It would not surprise me if this New Jersey case was an effort to piggyback onto McDonald, to bring up issues that McDonald doesn’t address. If it does, then the SCOTUS will combine the two.
There are going to be lots of landmines scattered through the case, and some of them are going to be invisible. For example, this will also probably settle a major issue of federalism, that is, can the ATF regulate weapons and ammunition produced in a State for use in that State. And this will have a spin off effect into other areas of federalism.
The SCOTUS will also have to address who can specifically be prohibited from owning a gun. This means defining “enough” mental illness. Not easy to do, as you don’t want to deny soldiers a gun just because they have PTSD, or the millions of Americans who have the most popular form of mental illness, depression.
From there, the decision could go off at a tangent, such as considering prohibited *kinds* of weapons. Everything from high explosives to “assault weapons”, to explosive chemical weapons.
This is why the SCOTUS earns the big bucks.
With that said, I am so glad that I left NJ.
And apparently not from other Joiseyites.
Tying Corzine the liberal into the liberal judges should be a winner.
The N.J. court has no right to tell us we can’t buy handguns.
Christie needs to make this an issue in the last couple of days!!
Tying Corzine the liberal into the liberal judges should be a winner.
Christie is a gun grabber too.
You just can’t fix that kind of stupid!!
Ha ha Ha.
Alas, that just shows what we are dealing with, my FRiend!
Politicians and judges should not get armed security if the people cannot defend themselves.
Phew! Camden, Trenton, and Camden will all be safe places now!
The Constitution says you can "keep" and "bear" arms, but not purchase them?
I guess they expect people to make their own?
-PJ
Related thread:
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
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.