Another good article by Jacob Sullum explaining some of the intricacies of the courts dancing around to deny constitutional rights.
posted on 04/08/2010 4:56:34 AM PDT
Just another liberal judge. A waste of time to use logic.
posted on 04/08/2010 4:59:58 AM PDT
(If you agree with the French raise your hand - If you are French raise both hands.)
DC could adopt a simple standard ~ if the Chief Justice has one it’s OK.
posted on 04/08/2010 5:02:10 AM PDT
("Git Out The Way")
By narrowing its focus to "assault weapons," the District took advantage of Heller's reference to "dangerous and unusual" firearms that can be banned without violating the Second Amendment.
A "dangerous and unusual" weapon is a mustard gas artillery shell, not an M-16 rifle.
posted on 04/08/2010 5:04:58 AM PDT
...a rifle is prohibited if it accepts a detachable magazine (as all semiautomatic rifles, with a few obscure exceptions, do)
The M1 Garand and SKS are hardly obscure. Pretty darned popular IMHO.
posted on 04/08/2010 5:21:35 AM PDT
(What outrage will the administration foist upon We the People that will be the last straw?)
I have a feeling SCOTUS is going to clear up Heller in the McDonald vs Chicago. We may not like it, but they do get tired of repeating themselves and they really don’t like it when they are ignored. A bunch of judges have been ignoring Heller and saying most of it is dicta. I would love to see Thomas write the majority and be very clear that the 2nd amendment means exactly what it says(”SHALL not be infringed”).
posted on 04/08/2010 6:23:15 AM PDT
("Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it")
“rational basis” and the liberal mindset...I don’t see a connection.
If the government can ban arms based on their magazine capacity or configuration the government can ban swords, archery equipment, spears, kitchen knives and etc.
posted on 04/08/2010 8:20:22 AM PDT
(The difference in genius and stupidity is that genius has it limits.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson