TFred
Regular Member
Ugh, that cumbersome "first post" column width again!
See next post!
TFred
See next post!
TFred
I disagree. All laws must pass muster on a much higher level than before. 'Does not create an undue burden' isn't relevant. There must be a clear and demonstrated significant benefit, right? Nobody can prove registration is useful, proof being those cities and countries that tried it and failed miserably. It's nothing but a money pit.IANAL either, but I think that what will be found is that so long as the registration or licensing does not create an undue burden, it will be found to be legal.
I agree they will make this argument. I don't see any merit, because it assumes guilt beforehand. Anytime the gov't asks us to do something because we might, at some future date, break a law is overstepping it's bounds.More thinking...
Registration is another can of worms. If it is reasonable to ensure that felons do not possess guns, the antis will argue that registration is required to know when newly convicted felons have guns that need to be divested.
TFred
My biggest problem with this whole thing is that the SCOTUS is using CASE LAW to put forth their decisions. Where in the Constitution does it say to do that? We The People, must force this government to go back to the Constitution and forget using case law the way the Founders intended.
Four words to research:
Common law
Stare Decisis
And again, just me being stupid. Exactly where do I find that in the Constitution? Maybe I'm just not following close enough. Bu I have yet to read that anywhere.
"The United States federal government (as opposed to the states) only partially has a common law system. United States federal courts only act as interpreters of statutes and the constitution by elaborating and precisely defining the broad language (connotation 1(b) above), but, unlike state courts, do not act as an "independent source of common law"
Other courts, for example, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the Supreme Court, always sit en banc, and thus the later decision controls. These courts essentially overrule all previous cases in each new case, and older cases survive only to the extent they do not conflict with newer cases. The interpretations of these courts - for example, Supreme Court interpretations of the constitution or federal statutes - are stable only so long as the older interpretation maintains the support of a majority of the court. The majority may persist through some combination of belief that the old decision is right, and that it is not sufficiently wrong to be overruled."
I concur.The phrase "reasonable restrictions" is just the anti's new version of "keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong kinds of people". It is "code" for "not letting poor, black, brown, or politically incorrect people have guns".
They've realized that the pro-2A world (and a growing segment of the minority community and civil rights activist community) has figured out who they REALLY mean when they say "the wrong kinds of people", and they've just changed the wording of their racist and classist ideology in an attempt to further confuse the public and mask their true intent.
Anyone who uses this term needs to be publicly "outed" as the racist and classist elitist that they are...
"Reasonable Restriction" is simply 21st Century Jim Crow.
As Doug quoted from Justice Breyer's dissent of McDonald (pp. 12-13).How would the right interact with a state or local government’s ability totake special measures during, say, national security emergencies?
As Doug quoted from Justice Breyer's dissent of McDonald (pp. 12-13).
This has got to be one of the scariest statements ever made by a Supreme Court justice. This flies in the face of the very purpose of the Second Amendment. Apparently Justice Breyer isn't so sure that police confiscating guns during Katrina was necessarily a bad idea. OR any other future, possibly contrived "national emergency" designed to quell the subjects.....
How could anyone who calls themselves an American utter these words? :cuss:
And more important to today, how could anyone who calls themselves an American vote to confirm the next justice that undoubtedly has this same view?
TFred
When the judicial system in the US was created with the Constitution, the concept of "courts" carried with it the ideas of stare decisis and and common law. Stare decisis helps avoid courts answering the same question repeatedly, but does not prevent going against stare decisis if a previous ruling was decided wrongly. McDonald, to some extent, went against stare decisis. Common law is a recognition that not all law is enacted by legislatures or handed down from courts. Some law pre-exists both, but has been recognized by the courts. These ideas, as long as they don't violate the Constitution, are valid and have been used throughout the history of the US court system.