|
|
|
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:
IA: Grassley must agree: The Supreme Court says we can ban assault rifles
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Sen. Chuck Grassley scored one this week for the gun-haters.
The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear an appeal of state laws banning military-style assault rifles. That means that bans in New York and Connecticut may stand, because the Supreme Court can’t decide much of anything these days. It is deadlocked between four liberal justices and four judicial activists posing as conservatives. Grassley refuses to give a hearing to President Obama’s nominee, whose judicial record looks more like John Roberts’ than Thurgood Marshall’s.
|
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/23/2016)
|
"The Supreme Court says we can ban assault rifles."
On another website I visit, a lawyer in discussing this case pointed out that SCOTUS actually said no such thing.
It simply refused to accept the case. It is wrong to infer that this would lead to any particular conclusion had the court actually taken the case.
The court cannot hear every case that comes to it.
It is regretable the court refused the case and did not both take it, and decide in our favor, but that's the breaks.
|
|
|
| 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| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times.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 For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in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) |
|
|
