Posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow
On Wednesday, June 3, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday's decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments
Then again, "We the People" saying our Right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed" should have been clear enough even for an idiot like you.
Guess not though.
With what? Your activist Court ruling? Hardly...
Continuing to rely on bad court rulings only reaffirms your anti-gun leanings. I’m betting you are heavily involved with the Brady campaign.
The Framers were very clear in what was to be the law of the land. Article VI couldn’t be any clearer.
I still find it entertaining that not only did the Mods allow this retread to change his name, but they left his original Account active in violation of the ToS.
Jim's sandbox and all that, but come on. If you are going to write a shell script 'bot like Roscoe/Mojave, at least make it follow the rules the rest of us do.
The Framers universally held that state laws were NOT contrary to restrictions to the powers delegated to Congress. But keep on begging.
Every Supreme Court decision from John Marshall forward.
I’m betting you are heavily involved with the Brady campaign.
I'm betting that you're the type of useful idiot that keeps them going.
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day...
By citing John Marshall's decision in Barron v Baltimore, I guess you have provided your answer that you agree with the Kelo decision that empowers the states to seize private property for any reason they deem to be justifiable under the takings clause. In fact, I suppose you would argue that the takings clause doesn't even apply at all since that is only a restriction on the federal government. Of course the case you are citing has been pretty much overturned by the SCOTUS -- sort of like Dred Scott has.
Ah, that makes perfect sense. I haven’t seen that other simpleton around in a while.
The big lie technique. Again.
Bad law is still bad law. Doesn’t matter how many times you hit your head with a hammer, it doesn’t make it right or smart.
You agree with the Dredd Scott decision.
“Whose side are you on?”
“”The Constitution and the Framers. In others words, the opposite of you. “”
OK. I get it. The states have every right to restrict or abolish those rights guaranteed in the constitution.
It’s good to see that we have an intellectual giant such as yourself straightening out all of us naive heathens.
Why is it necessary for a right protected from federal interference by the BOR to be "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment in order for it to be enforced against the states and local governments? The 14th Amendment clearly and unequivocally states that the states must provide "equal protection under the law" to all people within their jurisdiction, so why is "incorporation" of the 2nd necessary in order for the RKBA to be protected by the states instead of being violated by the states as so many now do?
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." - Albert Gallatin, October 7, 1789The three quotes that preexisted the BOR are from gentlemen who would be pretty good authorities on the original intent of the Constitution, and their inluence on those at the convention that produced the BOR is undeniable. The fourth quote that you must have missed in your idiotic laughter over the other three quotes would be a better reference point regarding the original intent than John Marshall's "universally understood ... history of the day".
Centuries of state law have protected and preserved the right to keep and bear arms. Replacing that with regulation by the federal judiciary would be "bad law."
Like the right to a Grand Jury indictment?
Later Troll
>>Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states<<
Not pretending. The constitution (and bill of rights) does not proclaim what rights the government gives individuals. Rather, it proclaims what God-given rights cannot be taken away by the government. This means that if the federal government cannot take away a certain right, then NO government under that umbrella can.
Conversely, if the constitution does allow room for the federal government to take away a right (like the right to rob), then local and state governments have the same right, even if the federal government is silent on the issue.
This appeal is clearly appropriate and is a textbook case of why the judicial branch was created in the first place.
No, Dred Scott is a decision based on the same kind of faulty reasoning that produced Barron and Kelo.
"universal understanding" that contradicted their plainly written words.
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.