Hutchison, Tester, Souder wading into gun rights case

The Hill ^ | 10/07/09 | J. Taylor Rushing

[publiusF27]

Those cases may not be binding precedent much longer. The amicus brief of constitutional law professors advocates overturning that whole line of precedent and giving meaning to "privileges and immunities" in the 14th amendment.

Case Filings

[Cboldt]

-- Those cases may not be binding precedent much longer. --

As if they ever were! That was my point. The cases say one thing, but courts make up a fabricated version to obtain a desired outcome.

See too, Scalia and the majority in the Heller case, deliberately misreading US v. Miller and what it says about the 1934 NFA.

Once the Feds are the entrenched authority on RKBA, the door is open for federal registration, and further limitations on type and place. Not that the state of IL is "a gun owners friend," but the feds are hostile to the 2nd amendment too. The federal government's 2nd amendment jurisprudence is utterly corrupt.

[Dead Corpse]

“Binding precedent” is judicial shorthand for “intellectual dishonesty and laziness”.

[supercat]

“Binding precedent” is judicial shorthand for “intellectual dishonesty and laziness”.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Nothing gives judicial precedence any authority whatsoever, except that arbitrary and capricious decisions by a court--even when otherwise legitimate--could fall afoul of "due process" and "equal protection". A court which decides a particular case one way may feel bound to decide similar cases similarly, but only in cases where there would be no other compelling authority for guidance.

[Dead Corpse]

Well said.

That "compelling authority" may look a bit like this pretty soon...