Skip to comments.
The Supreme Court Just Smacked Down A Terrible Anti-Gun Ruling
Federalist, the ^
| 22 March 2016
Posted on 03/22/2016 3:20:41 PM PDT by Lorianne
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
1
posted on
03/22/2016 3:20:41 PM PDT
by
Lorianne
To: Lorianne
“A judge at the time ruled that Caetanos decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified.”
Hmmmmph.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I don’t see where it says that...true, it may not be considered “arms” I guess, but they probably didn’t have a .38 Chief’s Special with shoulder holster then, did they?
2
posted on
03/22/2016 3:26:00 PM PDT
by
jessduntno
(The mind of a liberal...deceit, desire for control, greed, contradiction and fueled by hate.)
To: Lorianne
I like keeping the Court ham-strung with 8 on the bench. They aren’t going to do anything to mobilize conservative voters.
So much for the Constitutional crisis, no?
3
posted on
03/22/2016 3:26:24 PM PDT
by
mabelkitty
(Trump 2016!!)
To: Lorianne
This case is of added significance because it shows that the normal business of the Court is not being impeded by the absence of a ninth Justice.
4
posted on
03/22/2016 3:27:41 PM PDT
by
shibumi
(Vampire Outlaw of the Milky Way)
To: Lorianne
A judge at the time ruled that Caetanos decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified.So under this reasoning, I can carry a loaded flintlock pistol with me anywhere?
5
posted on
03/22/2016 3:28:00 PM PDT
by
Inyo-Mono
To: Lorianne
A judge at the time ruled that Caetanos decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified. The judge is a dunce who should be recalled.
6
posted on
03/22/2016 3:29:51 PM PDT
by
MileHi
(Liberalism is an ideology of parasites, hypocrites, grievance mongers, victims, and control freaks.)
To: Lorianne
And the fact is it was a UNANIMOUS SCOTUS ruling. With liberals voting like that, this is a little amazing.
7
posted on
03/22/2016 3:29:57 PM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(Islam is rabies. Anyone infected needs to be put down like a dog.)
To: Lorianne
A judge at the time ruled that Caetanos decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified.Then it should be no problem to carry sabers and swords in Taxachussets.
8
posted on
03/22/2016 3:29:59 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(This is the age of the death of reason and rule of law. Prepare!)
To: Lorianne
Very interesting ruling. Looking forward to reading it.
Next question: if a stun gun is covered, then how about a short barreled rifle? machine gun? You know, weapons that militia grunts actually use?
9
posted on
03/22/2016 3:32:10 PM PDT
by
ctdonath2
("Get the he11 out of my way!" - John Galt)
To: Lorianne
"Caetanos decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified. " That is a STUPID statement. We don't have muzzle loaders any more.
10
posted on
03/22/2016 3:33:31 PM PDT
by
SandRat
(Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
To: TigersEye
how about tar and feathers?
11
posted on
03/22/2016 3:37:47 PM PDT
by
aces
(may God kill Islam)
To: Lorianne
If the original claim is true, what would that do for the first amendment? Only types of speech that were used at the time are allowed? Or only churches that existed then?
To: Lorianne
A judge at the time ruled that Caetanos decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified.Using that logic, the first amendment should not apply to radio, TV , movies, telephones, or the internet because none of those things existed at the time the amendment was ratified.
To: jessduntno
but they probably didnt have a .38 Chiefs Special with shoulder holster —— then——, did they?
THEN....no radio, no tv, no natl newpapers, no, ah nevermind..These judges are a bunch of anus’....
14
posted on
03/22/2016 3:40:14 PM PDT
by
litehaus
(A memory toooo long)
To: Lorianne
More importantly, in the opinion, the SC reaffirmed both Heller and McDonald.
That's Yuge! Nobody was talking about either case and the SC just rared back and threw that out there.
Who'd a thought?
15
posted on
03/22/2016 3:41:08 PM PDT
by
skimbell
To: aces
I don’t think anyone has ever carried hot tar and bags of
feathers around as an armament.
But bullwhips, brass knuckles and billy clubs have been.
16
posted on
03/22/2016 3:41:32 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(This is the age of the death of reason and rule of law. Prepare!)
To: Lorianne
The unrelenting anti-gun bastards keep attacking the Second Amendment at every turn. After all these years, the courts need to start holding them in contempt for refusing to stop this mindless assault. The law is clear. If conventional arms are protected weapons, why would not a lower continuum of force weapon also be protected under the Second Amendment? They and their lawyers know the answer but continue to abuse the legal system by their contemptuous litigious behavior.
To: Lorianne
What happened to negative rights?
The 2A doesn’t GRANT protections, it ACKNOWLEDGES certain protections.
If the weapon isn’t acknowledged by the 2nd, it’s not automatically forbidden.
18
posted on
03/22/2016 3:42:42 PM PDT
by
Talisker
(One who commands, must obey.)
To: Inyo-Mono
..So under this reasoning, I can carry a loaded flintlock pistol with me anywhere...
Some states like Michigan consider any gun made before 1898 as an antique and not a firearm. At least it was that way 5 years ago when I was there. An old black powder cap and ball 6 shooter could be carried concealed without a permit.
19
posted on
03/22/2016 3:44:49 PM PDT
by
Sasparilla
(Hillary for Prosecution 2016)
To: skimbell
Who'd a thought? The DC government basically told the Supreme Court to sod off with regard to Heller, and I've often wondered just how well that was taken by even the Justices who voted against it. Disagreeing with someone isn't a capital crime in DC, but taking away their power is.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson