|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
xqqme
(8/17/2019)
|
"...bias of the court..."?
.
As long as the court is biased towards the Constitution's clear and plain language over the convoluted and restricted (infringing) language of Congress, States, Cities, and other such law-writing bodies, isn't that a good thing?
After all, isn't the Constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/17/2019)
|
“The point of our brief is that it’s bringing home the real-world impact of gun violence on the young people whose stories we’re telling,” said Ira Feinberg, a partner at the firm, “and that’s a perspective that we wanted to make sure the court has.”
Feinbert et al are arguing for a political decision. Their problem is that this is a constitutional question, not a political one.
It is not within the purview of the SCOTUS to rule on political questions, only on matters of law and the Constitution. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 |
|
|
