zaitz
Banned
I don't read every US Supreme court decision every day and I have no idea that some might come up that would influence a case or situation in which I am concerned.
I was checking the news today and one of my news sources speaks of the newer decision caetano. I see that there is a new decision out caetano in which the US Supreme court says,
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).
The Mass. supreme court has affirmed on frivolous grounds a Massachusetts banning stun guns and affirmed the conviction of a battered woman who had a stun gun to protect herself from an abusive boyfriend. (She didn't have to fire the stun gun; she just showed the gun to him and let him know he needed to knock off bothering her.)
Weapons are to be presumed constitutionally protected in terms of bearing them; the fact that one could perhaps purchase a handgun for self-defense is not a sufficient reason to prohibit the use of alternative weapons a person might choose, especially given the possible moral, criminal and civil liability from handgun use.
The decision sending the decision back to Massachusetts for further consideration was unanimous and 2 justices (of the US Supreme court) (at least) would simply have ruled that the Mass Supreme court was wrong and frivolous and foolish, acting on behalf of a state that would not protect its citizens and wished simply to disarm them.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms [should end up including knifes of fixed blades of whatever length, folding knives longer than 3.5 inches, switchblade knives, spring knives, nunchunks, throwing stars, brass knuckles, swords and bayonets and kubotans], even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).
With any luck, the city of Seattle will cave on its anti-knife-bearing provisions and failing that, the Supreme court is helping the district court rule in my favor, I think . . .
With any luck, I might be in the news again, this time a little bit less unfavorably than in Levi's review of me . . .
Although, I was kind of looking forward to a few days of carrying around a sign at some parades or fairs that attorneys Holmes, Smith and Kennedy have the blood of rape victims on their hands . . . and it would be nice of God to show up and have a chat with them.
Maybe I can't have everything in life . . .
Meanwhile, if you are a news reporter in Seattle, you might wish to read here and ask around your lawyer friends if that is going to affect the ability of Seattle to ban most knife carrying. Sooner or later, with any luck, a federal court may rule on the question and/or state courts, if I refile based on article 1, section 24.
Unanimous pro-Second-Amendment stun gun decision from the Supreme Court . . .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ent-stun-gun-decision-from-the-supreme-court/
I was checking the news today and one of my news sources speaks of the newer decision caetano. I see that there is a new decision out caetano in which the US Supreme court says,
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).
The Mass. supreme court has affirmed on frivolous grounds a Massachusetts banning stun guns and affirmed the conviction of a battered woman who had a stun gun to protect herself from an abusive boyfriend. (She didn't have to fire the stun gun; she just showed the gun to him and let him know he needed to knock off bothering her.)
Weapons are to be presumed constitutionally protected in terms of bearing them; the fact that one could perhaps purchase a handgun for self-defense is not a sufficient reason to prohibit the use of alternative weapons a person might choose, especially given the possible moral, criminal and civil liability from handgun use.
The decision sending the decision back to Massachusetts for further consideration was unanimous and 2 justices (of the US Supreme court) (at least) would simply have ruled that the Mass Supreme court was wrong and frivolous and foolish, acting on behalf of a state that would not protect its citizens and wished simply to disarm them.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms [should end up including knifes of fixed blades of whatever length, folding knives longer than 3.5 inches, switchblade knives, spring knives, nunchunks, throwing stars, brass knuckles, swords and bayonets and kubotans], even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).
With any luck, the city of Seattle will cave on its anti-knife-bearing provisions and failing that, the Supreme court is helping the district court rule in my favor, I think . . .
With any luck, I might be in the news again, this time a little bit less unfavorably than in Levi's review of me . . .
Although, I was kind of looking forward to a few days of carrying around a sign at some parades or fairs that attorneys Holmes, Smith and Kennedy have the blood of rape victims on their hands . . . and it would be nice of God to show up and have a chat with them.
Maybe I can't have everything in life . . .
Meanwhile, if you are a news reporter in Seattle, you might wish to read here and ask around your lawyer friends if that is going to affect the ability of Seattle to ban most knife carrying. Sooner or later, with any luck, a federal court may rule on the question and/or state courts, if I refile based on article 1, section 24.
Unanimous pro-Second-Amendment stun gun decision from the Supreme Court . . .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ent-stun-gun-decision-from-the-supreme-court/