Court Dismisses "Heller II" Case: D.C. Gun Registration, "Assault Weapon" Ban, and "Large"...

NRA - ILA ^ | March 26, 2010 | NA

[Eagle Eye]

They SHOULD have ruled that the 2nd provides a right to firearms ownership.

In a just country it would seem to me that the clear and plain language of the Founding Documents would be enough to rid the entire country of mountains of contradictory legislation.

If one is a free man then one may keep and bear arms.

Arms does not mean a single shot black powder muzzle loader or a penknife.

But that is in a just and free country, isn't it?

[Cboldt]

-- It's situations like this where congress must use its impeachment powers and remove these black-robed communists from the bench. --

Congress doesn't and won't do that when it disagrees with the ruling (e.g., the Lopez decision striking down federal law), so you can bet the Congress won't impeach and/or remove when it agrees with the decision.

[mvpel]

The SCOTUS opened the door for scores of lawsuits and litigation. They SHOULD have ruled that the 2nd provides a right to firearms ownership.

Do you think that it would have been a 5-4 ruling, instead of a 4-5 ruling, if the litigants had tried to force them into such a broad ruling?

We didn't lose our rights overnight, and we won't win them back overnight.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Appeal, appeal, appeal.....
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
“They SHOULD have ruled that the 2nd provides a right to firearms ownership.”

.

But the second does no such thing! - - It merely defers to the existing right that God provided.
.

[oyez]

Idget Judge

[wku man]

"This is a good thing right? Get this to the Supreme Court so that it can be decided correctly."

Yeah...like the SCOTUS decided Kelo vs. New London correctly.

We The People know what the 2d Amendment means, and I for one do not trust any court's "interpretation" of my fundemental right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[sergeantdave]

“Congress doesn’t and won’t do that when it disagrees with the ruling (e.g., the Lopez decision striking down federal law), so you can bet the Congress won’t impeach and/or remove when it agrees with the decision.”

You have, right now, posed an insoluble conundrum.

Congress “doesn’t and won’t”...”so Congress won’t...”

Care to unravel your web?

[Cboldt]

-- Care to unravel your web? --

Sort of like "You won't spank your kid when you disagree with what he's done, so why would you spank your kid when you agree with what he's done?"

Congress won't and doesn't impeach judges who invalidate Congressional enactments, so you can bet they won't impeach judges who uphold [unconstitutional] Congressional enactments.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!