-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Supreme Court won't review gun rights outside of home - CNBC
- Thread starter ConditionThree
- Start date
okboomer
Regular Member
I don't see where this has any bearing on Gun Rights outside of the home in MD.
As I understand the appeal, it did not ask the court to comment on the constitutionality of the MD permit requirement, rather it asked for the court to "dismiss" the state permit requirement in light of Williams' failure to acquire the permit.
Then, I am confused by the implications of the second statement ... the man had a gun in a book bag that he had HIDDEN(?) in the bushes??? So, at some point in time, the gun was left unattended in public? IMHO, Williams demonstrated in no uncertain terms that he was unfit to carry or posses a firearm.
AND...
As I understand the appeal, it did not ask the court to comment on the constitutionality of the MD permit requirement, rather it asked for the court to "dismiss" the state permit requirement in light of Williams' failure to acquire the permit.
Then, I am confused by the implications of the second statement ... the man had a gun in a book bag that he had HIDDEN(?) in the bushes??? So, at some point in time, the gun was left unattended in public? IMHO, Williams demonstrated in no uncertain terms that he was unfit to carry or posses a firearm.
since9
Campaign Veteran
The Supreme Court of the United States of America is Dead - R.I.P.
Key point in the article: "The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that gun rights applied not just to federal laws, but to state and city laws as well. The court's rulings in the gun cases have been closely divided, by 5-4 votes and split along conservative and liberal lines."
If they've ruled that gun rights apply at the local, state, and federal levels, then they've ruled. Since they did not rule that gun rights apply only in the home or only outside the home, then their ruling is all-inclusive, applying both inside as well as outside the home.
That's why I say the Supreme Court is dead. They must be, as this was a no-brainer. All they would have had to do is uphold their previous 2010 ruling with a minor clarification. They did not, and since anyone alive would have done so, they must be dead.
Perhaps they're zombies, merely brain-dead, for ruling that gun rights apply to individuals. As the Constitutional commandment "shall not be infringed" immediately follows, they have already set the standard: "[An individual's] right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Yet having set the standard, they ignore a Maryland court's decision that infringes on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?
They must be dead. Otherwise, this would have been classified as a reversal, rather than letting a lower court's decision stand.
Key point in the article: "The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that gun rights applied not just to federal laws, but to state and city laws as well. The court's rulings in the gun cases have been closely divided, by 5-4 votes and split along conservative and liberal lines."
If they've ruled that gun rights apply at the local, state, and federal levels, then they've ruled. Since they did not rule that gun rights apply only in the home or only outside the home, then their ruling is all-inclusive, applying both inside as well as outside the home.
That's why I say the Supreme Court is dead. They must be, as this was a no-brainer. All they would have had to do is uphold their previous 2010 ruling with a minor clarification. They did not, and since anyone alive would have done so, they must be dead.
Perhaps they're zombies, merely brain-dead, for ruling that gun rights apply to individuals. As the Constitutional commandment "shall not be infringed" immediately follows, they have already set the standard: "[An individual's] right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Yet having set the standard, they ignore a Maryland court's decision that infringes on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?
They must be dead. Otherwise, this would have been classified as a reversal, rather than letting a lower court's decision stand.