|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Gunfight at the Supreme Court
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I don’t know how the Second Amendment case the Supreme Court heard this week will turn out, but I do know this: If the subject weren’t so serious, the case in its current posture, with substantial doubt about whether there is even a dispute left for the court to decide, would be downright funny. For a window into the dynamics of today’s Supreme Court, look no further than the transcript of the argument in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/5/2019)
|
This lefty editorialist needs to shut up and go away.
Even if the contested provisions in that law have been recinded, there is still a major issue before the Court. Both the federal circuit court and the district court of appeals upheld its constitutionality, blatantly ignoring Heller and McDonald, and the textual and historic analysis test used by the Court in both cases to weigh any injuries to the right, which is FUNDAMENTAL..
That is a situation that demands remedial action at the highest level, something that would have long-term ramifications. Lower courts simply cannot be permitted to ignore SCOTUS precedents. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
