Posted on 11/08/2018 10:09:02 AM PST by marktwain
I think California still has you beat. Their Supreme Court decided that a constitutional amendment was unconstitutional (the no gay marriage amendment).
They are talkin' the Libtard language that carrying a weapon by licensed/screened citizens is a threat to public safety. Packin' prevents crimes; unarmed civilians make a much easier and frequently assaulted targets.
There is no mention in My Constitution about limiting my rights to "within my home only" or allowing a police officer to decide on the spot whether I have Second Amendment rights or not.
-----------
SCOTUS needs to make them sit in a corner until they have read MacDonald and can pass a quiz.
Yup. Their ruling is in direct conflict with the supreme court's rulings.
.
They did!
.
I would imaginre that they banned hunting in those areas.
Maybe we can all pull a page out of the Left’s handbook and declare ourselves “citizens of the world” so U.S. laws don’t really apply to us. ;-)
Selya is an old timer from Reagan era..
https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/selya-bruce-marshall
—
Selya, Bruce Marshall
Born 1934 in Providence, RI
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on July 27, 1982, to a seat vacated by Raymond J. Pettine. Confirmed by the Senate on August 18, 1982, and received commission on August 18, 1982. Service terminated on November 24, 1986, due to appointment to another judicial position.
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on September 26, 1986, to a new seat authorized by 98 Stat. 333. Confirmed by the Senate on October 8, 1986, and received commission on October 14, 1986. Assumed senior status on December 31, 2006.
Other Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, 2005-2012; presiding judge, 2008-2012
Education:
Harvard University, A.B., 1955
Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1958
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Edward W. Day, U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island, 1958-1960
Private practice, Providence, Rhode Island, 1960-1982
Judge, Lincoln [Rhode Island] Probate Court, 1965-1972
Board member, Federal Judicial Center, 1995-1999
Member, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2000-2004
In that case, we also have no right to the other protections of the Constitution outside our homes. You have to wonder if some judges were born stupid, or if they had to study really hard to get to their level of ignorance.
“So judge asshole says I cant defend myself outside my house!?”
I wonder if these C suckers are going to apply their decision nationwide like that puke judge in Hawaii did with immigration? Maybe not now that Sessions is gone.
“A well regulated Militia...”
But only inside your home.
I’m sure on Planet Progressive this makes sense.
That is exactly it.
...but then, we’re all “more enlightened” now. If the founders knew what we know they’d agree with this! /s
;)
” who in many cases is an individual who couldnt get into trade school or a good college, is going to decide whether Im able to arm myself?”
—
Mean,snobbish comment——I have a very smart son who has been a cop for 25 years.
.
“The First Circuit has ruled that there is no right to bear arms outside of the home.”
Ironic that the liberals in Massachusetts are imposing the same gun control laws on their state that the British tried to impose.
And they should meet the same fate.
Three loaded and in arm’s reach of my bed.
And the right to transfer a firearm from one private citizen to another without government oversight or permission is just an illusion.
Rise up and slap down an unconstitutional tyrannical government from the comfort of your own TV room!
Revolutionary War era Massachusetts patriots would be ashamed to be buried there today.
Intruder Doesn't Heed Warning, Woman Shoots Him In The Chest (911 related)
On cam: Off-duty lady cop shoots armed robber trying to attack women, kids
Mother and daughter in a violent shootout with an armed robbery
Surely you jest. It's a liberal court. Freedom of speech certainly applies within the home (unless you offend someone's feelings). Freedom of assembly certainly applies (unless your assembly involves people parking cars or making noise). Fourth Amendment -- no problem, as long as you are seeking protection for transgressive sexual acts, terrorism or drug related activity. Other stuff, not so much.
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.