No it is not.
He isn’t wrong. I simply cited the most originalist, textualist justice ever to preside over the court.
That’s your opinion.
Uh no. I looked.
So you believe even convicts, felons, etc. should be able to own and buy with no limits.
Does that quality as “Shall not be infringed.”
I’ll take a response of “shall not be infringed” as a statement of confirmation.
Well yeah, it is.
No it is not. The purpose of the judiciary is NOT to determine how much of a violation is allowed.
Been addressed ad infinitum.
Your opinion is noted.
That is also an acceptable post of confirmation. Just checking.
It’s not an opinion.
They already lost at the 10th circuit… Supreme court should grant cert or not this year… Based on the recent, prior cases that the supreme court has denied cert, odds are high this get denied as well…
Has nothing to do with what I posted. But thanks.
How about these post Heller cases?
NRA v. McGraw
NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Lane v. Holder
It is. Yours. Which bears no legal weight.
Cases in point.
Shall not be infringed.
Did it go to the SCOTUS?
Apparently you did not read the first three paragraphs of your link. The case had nothing to do with state law vs. the US Constitution. In fact, as the link states, the Court didn’t even address the issue of Constitutionality.
No you haven’t. You have been running in circles repeating the same old discredited points over and over. That’s not a discussion.
