Heller was not a good decision. It served one purpose and one alone.
On that we agree. But it’s the law right now until a new law is passed (which would most likely be challenged and eventually brought before the sC again). And around and around we go.
And if the people elect democrats and they pack the courts as they are threatening to do, would it be decided the same way again? Or would the minorities dissent that denies we possess an individual right to self defense be the new majority ruling?
Show me were she is anti 2nd
It’s not actually law. The SCOTUS doesn’t write law, Roberts made that clear when he rationalized obamacare.
What they offer is opinions. Theoretically they could be ignored, it’s happened in the past.
I just did. Come on man, you’re way to smart for that.
So background checks are assualting the 2nd?
That looked like a lot more than calling for background checks.
Well the NRA wanted the same thing… Tell me where they are coming for your guns
What does the 2nd say?
What does prior restraint mean?
Is that all that group of howling jackals is about?
That’s your argument?
He doesn’t speak for me. I’m not “reasonable”.
We know this.
Not sure, but he did ban open carry in California. Because, you know, scary black people and all that.
2 Likes
In that case I should be able to ship a bunch of cocaine into the county. Hell, I may sell it, I may just flush it down the toilet. Who knows?
No idea what that is supposed to mean, has nothing to do with what I wrote. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not illegal as there exist legal and legitimate reasons for doing so.
It never was illegal. It was used as an analogy to rationalize one of the worst opinions by the SCOTUS ever and an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment.
She’s not. It’s all or nothing for some of these gun people. No compromise - ever.
1 Like
I guess the theory is that it’s not against the law if you get away with it. Much like the dotard president and family.
