|
|
|
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:
dasing
(2/22/2018)
|
| JUST because the "courts" say no, does NOT mean the laws are constitutional ! |
| Comment by:
jac
(2/22/2018)
|
Opinions from liberal judges that have substituted their prejudices for the constitution that they swore to uphold.
It does not make these decisions constitutionally correct. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(2/22/2018)
|
In the Heller" decision, SCOTUS said something about protecting guns in common use. I'm not that happy with that standard but, THERE ARE 8 MILLION AR RIFLES OUT THERE.
Some courts seem to not get what "shall not be infringed" means....and prove it by infringing on the 2A right!
MOLON LABE! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/22/2018)
|
In 1939, the SCOTUS ruled in U.S. v. Miller that the sawed-off shotgun at issue wasn't within the ambit of 2A protection because there was no evidence that it was "in common use", that it had "some reasonable relationship to . . . the efficiency of a well regulated militia", that it was "any part of the ordinary military equipment" or that it "could contribute to the common defense". Modern sporting rifles (read, AR-15s and the like) meet every requirement that the Court ruled as necessary for the right to apply.
This question has already been answered, but no lower court respects that finding. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(2/22/2018)
|
Phorto,
the problem with the Miller case is the solicitor general pulled a fast one on the law. By always refering to the particulate shotgun that was in evidence and claiming no one could produce any evidence IT was ever used in a war, he cleverly allowed the actual fact (well known at the time) that shotguns like it had been very useful in WW1, being refered to as "trench brooms."
BTW, the Miller case was read in by the solicitor general. No defendants present, no defense lawyer present....the firm representing Miller was doing it pro Bono and couldn't afford to continue, so had bowed out.
Great case...almost a true drumhead, no? |
|
|
