SCOTUS.
When will somebody figure out that SCOTUS constitutionally is NOT ALLOWED to make national law? Anyone? States? Any state?
This is good. But Garland should still not be confirmed regardless.
The 2nd Amendment does say ‘arms’ not ‘firearms.’
What I choose to arm myself with should be my choice.
The liberals on the court are not going to challenge Heller in an election year just to see the general election become a referendum on the Second Amendment...a referendum that Hillary is sure to lose.
So you have to get a license just like a gun?
The state court repeatedly framed the question before it as whether a particular weapon was “‘in common use at the time’ of enactment of the Second Amendment.” ... In Heller, we emphatically rejected such a formulation. We found the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong, but “bordering on the frivolous.” ... Instead, we held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” ... (emphasis added). It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point. Yet the Supreme Judicial Court did not so much as mention it.
Nice to win one, but the fact that it was unamonous RAISES WARNING FLAGS TO ME.
That tells me that they are ‘acting nice’, so as to get the Republicans to buckle and approve the Obama’s leftist on the court.
Liberals NEVER support Constitutional rights, unless they have a greater objective...
Of course the leftists on the court are ok with applying 2A to stunguns. Soon they will support a ban on all firearms based on, “well stunguns are still legal so you 2A types are over reacting.”