Replies

"No, thet remanded because the decision was "vague" as to how the statute violated the 2A "

It's true that the lower court's decision was vague. But the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case with the words:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Seems to me that they were looking for specific evidence.

"Are you going to stand on a 17" shotgun being less suitable than a 20" shotgun?"

Of course. The law says not less than 18". 17" is less than 18".

I suppose if the speed limit is 55, you think 56 should be legal? I mean, come on. It's only 56. What's the big deal? Certainly if 55 is legal, 56 should be. Are people going to start dying in droves if they go 56? Do you have proof that 56 is more dangerous than 55?

That's what you sound like. A whiny little child. Take your 5th grade arguments elsewhere.

This court ruling notes that any weapon is a "militia" weapon, that civilians ownership of arms isn't predicated upon militia service, and that you are a complete and total moron.

Yes, it says right in the ruling that robertpaulsen is a complete fruitloop and totally out to lunch. Maybe if you read the decision, you'll see where they do this.

Along with addressing every lame ass Brady talking point you've been spewing the last couple hundred posts.