|
|
|
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:
Justices Hear Arguments in 2A Challenge of NYC Gun Control Law
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In a case being closely watched by advocates on both sides of the gun issue, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday heard arguments challenging a New York City law that was actually changed earlier this year in an effort to derail the case, a move one national gun rights organization publicly derided.
“The only reason that change was made is because the Court accepted the case for review earlier this year, and everybody knows it,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/3/2019)
|
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 |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
