Not by the SC. Lower courts yes. And some have not even been taken to court.
Yup- the SC has again and again decided to not take up those cases- effectively affirming them.
There is one New York case that is getting to the SC this year that will be interesting.
These ases can still end up back in the SC. And sooner or later one of them will end up there again.
This New York case has a strong chance for expanding gun protections and would be a big win for you folks if it happens.
No. And the New Jersey case is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Its literally one of hundreds and hundreds of cases with similar language of upholding gun laws as constitutional.
They are not upheld as Constitutional.
You keep on saying that…I guess i’ll move on to a few more cases. Would you like me to point to the judicial language that upholds the gun laws as constitutional?
It was DAPA (Not DACA) that the courts ended up preventing Obama from implementing it and ended up 4 and 4 in the Supreme Court.
If you have one that doesn’t actually violate the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.
Here, we conclude that the requirement that applicants demonstrate a “justifiable need” to publicly carry a handgun for self-defense qualifies as a “presumptively lawful,”
“longstanding” regulation and therefore does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee
Self licking ice cream cone. Just like I said.
Strange that out of those hundreds and hundreds of cases where gun laws were upheld the Supreme Court hasn’t struck them down. Whether you agree or like it or not, the Courts have upheld the constitutionality of the gun laws.
Actually, Heller and McDonald both struck down. Half-assed. Of course they are both being ignored, as you so rightly pointed out.
No, they haven’t. Now if you want to ignore that courts at every level ignore the 2bd Amendment, you win.
Actually they do…
Really? Site the power that lets them countermand the bill of rights without a constitutional amendment.
The words “shall not be infringed” are ver clear. Any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms that has been ruled Constitutional by the Court, is by definition a flawed ruling. Nothing in Article III of the Constitution gives the Court the latitude to ignore other portions of the Constitution, regardless of the majority public sentiment or political pressure.
No they weren’t. They were doing what was politically expedient.
Lower Courts are frequently overturned by the SCOTUS. How many of those 1300 cases were elevated to that level?
Again, how many of those cases went to the Supreme Court giving them the opportunity to strike them down?
It’s not being nullified. Congress passed the budget on 2/15/2019, in accordance with the Appropriations Clause
In 1976 Congress passed the National Emergency Act which authorized the president to spend certain of these funds if the president believed there exists a national emergency. Note Congress doesn’t have to believe it- only the president. This is what Congress wanted. This is what Trump is doing.
You need recent cases where they restrict guns? We just had one…we could make it a law that you must store your gun in a locked gun rack…we arent infringing on your right to own a firearm…its right there in the case.