Summit_Ace
Regular Member
imported post
georg jetson wrote:
georg jetson wrote:
PM sentSummit_Ace wrote:Grapeshot wrote:In the state of Louisiana he does not have to wait for the Macdonald case to be decided by SCOTUS. The fiths circut court wich has jurisdiction in Louisiana has ruled in U.S. v Emerson the second amendment applies. Later the court upheld that ruling in U.S. v Darrington. As for funds he wishes to be unaffiliated at this time.Summit_Ace wrote:We shall see what SCOTUS says about incorporation whether 'tis fact or not.barf wrote:Yes but in these matters the U.S. constitution trumps the state. He listed that as a fact of his suit but not necessarily an argument on his behalf.Maybe I'm a bit dense, but doesn't the same section of the state constitution that we cite as allowing open carry ALSO allow the "passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person".
I guess reading through the "causes of action" section maybe this is about the costs, medical/personal information, and indemnification associated with the CHP.
Good luck, but I don't see this going anywhere...
Seems very premature to be volunteering funds to me. ymmv
Yata hey
I've now read U.S. vs Timothy Joe Emersonboth the district court decision and the appeal by the plaintiff and can find no reference to the second amendment being incorporated throught the 14th. The jist of the initial argument was whether 18 YSC 922(g)(8)(c)(ii) is constitutional. Although some of the cited references delt with incorporation against the states, this was irrelevant to theconclusion of the courts in both cases. There was no reason to considerthe state issue when the statute that was challenged was federal. The affirmation that the 2nd amendment is an individual right was certainly addressed, but is now irrelevant based on US vs Heller. I'd interested to knowwhat part of theEmerson desisionyour family's friend refers.
BTW - Check your messages