How many Republican judges does it take to overturn a left-wing law?

[Wolfstrike]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

Of all the things we have as rights this one should be above San Diego. You have the right to bear arms, anywhere in the US. That one like free speech are not negotiable by where you are.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

Of all the things we have as rights this one should be above San Diego. You have the right to bear arms, anywhere in the US. That one like free speech are not negotiable by where you are.

Wrong- So very Wrong! Let me see you exercise your right to bear arms in a court house or on a plane. Oops, forgot about those, didn't cha?
When might your freedom of speech be limited? Here are five examples:

1. In a private home. The First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech, but unless an individual is acting on behalf of the government or as a government agent, she is generally free to prohibit any kind of speech she wants in her own home, or any other private setting, as long as she does so without breaking another law, such as physically assaulting someone.
2. In a private workplace. If you work for a private employer, you generally have no right to free speech in the workplace, and can be disciplined for what you say. However, your employer may run afoul of other laws, such as discrimination laws if you're fired for religious expression, or labor laws if you're fired for reporting labor violations or whistleblowing.
3. Social media. Although social media sites like Facebook might seem like an ideal public forum for posting unpopular or controversial content, as private companies, they are technically free to delete or otherwise censor any content they deem offensive.
4. School activities. Although students at public schools still have the right to First Amendment free speech, their rights may not be as extensive as the rights of adults. For example, in a 1988 Supreme Court case, the court ruled that students' free speech rights weren't violated when school administrators removed articles from a student newspaper that dealt with controversial topics.
5. Obscene speech. The First Amendment does not protect speech or expression that is considered "obscene." This is why child porn is against the law. However, the exact line between obscenity and free speech is often hard to determine. For example, the filmmaker behind the controversial "2 Girls, 1 Cup" viral video was sentenced to four years in prison for making films that were considered obscene, despite his contention that they were "art" protected by the First Amendment.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

Of all the things we have as rights this one should be above San Diego. You have the right to bear arms, anywhere in the US. That one like free speech are not negotiable by where you are.

i am more interested in how many sasquatches does it take to assist Hillary Clinton in using her toilet.

 

[2aguy]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Twit...as has already been pointed out is several threads..we need 5 actual Constitutional votes on the court...that means waiting out kennedy or ginsberg.....since they aren't really justices, just left wingers dressed in robes...

 

[2aguy]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

Nope......Heller already addressed this so San Diego is already breaking the law.....

Those towns in the West...had as much success controlling criminals as Chicago, D.C. and Baltimore do today....

 

[2aguy]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

From Heller.....on carrying a weapon.....San Diego is out of line, and the Supreme Court needs to smack them hard...


Here.....some specific references to carrying a weapon for self defense...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf



Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

--------------



We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---



3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------




-------------

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”




As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”



-----------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms






--------






participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.


And what about concealed and open carry?

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry

-----
------

Page 19

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
---------

And about the millitia.....


p.38

In the famous fugitive-slave case of Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 850, 852 (CC Pa. 1833), Baldwin, sitting as a circuit judge, cited both the Second Amendment and the Pennsylvania analogue for his conclusion that a citizen has “a right to carry arms in defence of his property or person, and to use them, if either were assailed with such force, numbers or violence as made it necessary for the protection or safety of either.”
-----------

P.39

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.
-------

p.40

Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”
-------



------
P.43

The understanding that the Second Amendment gave freed blacks the right to keep and bear arms was reflected in congressional discussion of the bill, with even an opponent of it saying that the founding generation “were for every man bearing his arms about him and keeping them in his house, his castle, for his own defense.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 362, 371 (1866) (Sen. Davis).


--


The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.
-------


We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----


-----

P.58

In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns.

See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
------------

Handguns.....

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

-------

P62-63

Balancing the Right....

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach.

The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.
-------

The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

 

[2aguy]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

And even more focus from the Heller decision....

P62-63

Balancing the Right....

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach.

The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.

A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.

Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.
-------

The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

 

[12icer]

It has always been evident that liberals want ONLY to be able to force others to do as they say, no matter if it interferes with those peoples rights. Liberals find themselves to be supreme, and more deserving of remembrance, power, wealth, adoration, and dissemination their like minded progeny into the world while restricting others. To do that they must remove others ability to stop the self appointed dictators.

 

[martybegan]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

The difference is in those towns the law enforcement made sure NO ONE could bring a gun in, and they guaranteed the people would be protected. If not, people would stop coming to the town.

Does San Diego guarantee the same thing?

Also, if regular citizens cannot carry why can off duty police officers? Why do they get a right the rest of the people do not?

They should have to lock up their service pieces at the end of their shift and, like the rest of us, rely on the police.

 

[Wolfstrike]

Tn.

There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

that's at caused the massacre at the OK corral

 

[Wolfstrike]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

Of all the things we have as rights this one should be above San Diego. You have the right to bear arms, anywhere in the US. That one like free speech are not negotiable by where you are.

Wrong- So very Wrong! Let me see you exercise your right to bear arms in a court house or on a plane. Oops, forgot about those, didn't cha?
When might your freedom of speech be limited? Here are five examples:

1. In a private home. The First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech, but unless an individual is acting on behalf of the government or as a government agent, she is generally free to prohibit any kind of speech she wants in her own home, or any other private setting, as long as she does so without breaking another law, such as physically assaulting someone.
2. In a private workplace. If you work for a private employer, you generally have no right to free speech in the workplace, and can be disciplined for what you say. However, your employer may run afoul of other laws, such as discrimination laws if you're fired for religious expression, or labor laws if you're fired for reporting labor violations or whistleblowing.
3. Social media. Although social media sites like Facebook might seem like an ideal public forum for posting unpopular or controversial content, as private companies, they are technically free to delete or otherwise censor any content they deem offensive.
4. School activities. Although students at public schools still have the right to First Amendment free speech, their rights may not be as extensive as the rights of adults. For example, in a 1988 Supreme Court case, the court ruled that students' free speech rights weren't violated when school administrators removed articles from a student newspaper that dealt with controversial topics.
5. Obscene speech. The First Amendment does not protect speech or expression that is considered "obscene." This is why child porn is against the law. However, the exact line between obscenity and free speech is often hard to determine. For example, the filmmaker behind the controversial "2 Girls, 1 Cup" viral video was sentenced to four years in prison for making films that were considered obscene, despite his contention that they were "art" protected by the First Amendment.

so...you're saying the government has the right to gun control corruption, because you can name other examples of corruption?

 

[FA_Q2]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

That may have been the case 200 years ago when the BoR did not apply to the states and they could do such things as establishing a state religion. After the 14 that changed and protected your rights from all levels of the government as it should have always been.

If a city can deny you your second amendment rights they can deny any right. Outlaw a religion, speech or garrison the guard in your home.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

Nope......Heller already addressed this so San Diego is already breaking the law.....

Those towns in the West...had as much success controlling criminals as Chicago, D.C. and Baltimore do today....

No, they aren't. They are not restricting anyone from owning a gun. They are restricting where owners can take their guns. BIG DIFFERENCE.

 

[BULLDOG]

It has always been evident that liberals want ONLY to be able to force others to do as they say, no matter if it interferes with those peoples rights. Liberals find themselves to be supreme, and more deserving of remembrance, power, wealth, adoration, and dissemination their like minded progeny into the world while restricting others. To do that they must remove others ability to stop the self appointed dictators.

I never considered myself to be supreme, and more deserving of remembrance, power, wealth, adoration, and dissemination my like minded progeny into the world until I read several of your posts. I still don't believe those things, but I'm beginning to see how some people could.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If the right had their way America would be like Africa.

Backwards, stupid and fallling apart.

 

[OKTexas]

If the right had their way America would be like Africa.

Backwards, stupid and fallling apart.

Like Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore and Philly?


.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

The difference is in those towns the law enforcement made sure NO ONE could bring a gun in, and they guaranteed the people would be protected. If not, people would stop coming to the town.

Does San Diego guarantee the same thing?

Also, if regular citizens cannot carry why can off duty police officers? Why do they get a right the rest of the people do not?

They should have to lock up their service pieces at the end of their shift and, like the rest of us, rely on the police.

Oh please, there were no guarantees in the old west. My point is that your right to bear arms is not 100% absolute at all times, and in all places. You can't carry a gun on to a plane, or into a court house, in Montana you can carry in many places without a permit, but you can't carry in a bank. Different jurisdictions adopt different laws, even when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

 

[martybegan]

The joke is on you.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case from San Diego about strict gun permits. (for the 3rd time)

Is it safe to assume they didn't want to hear the case because they know it's unconstitutional and they don't want to say it?

Now, let's everyone take out our letter blocks, picture books, and sock puppets so we can explain to the Supreme Court what their job is.



QUESTION: Do cities have the right to force people to buy nearly unobtainable gun permits to carry guns?

The Second amendment says : "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

hhhhmmmm.



Take as much time as you need to go over the question and review the reference materiel until you reach a conclusion.

Actually, the supremes shouldn't interfere with the jurisdiction of San Diego. San Diego is not restricting who can own a gun, or bear arms. They are exercising their sovereign right to legislate who carries a gun in their city. There were many towns in the old west who required all people to turn their guns into the sheriff upon entering the town.

Now if the SCOTUS would get out of healthcare, education and abortion we'd be making real,progress.

The difference is in those towns the law enforcement made sure NO ONE could bring a gun in, and they guaranteed the people would be protected. If not, people would stop coming to the town.

Does San Diego guarantee the same thing?

Also, if regular citizens cannot carry why can off duty police officers? Why do they get a right the rest of the people do not?

They should have to lock up their service pieces at the end of their shift and, like the rest of us, rely on the police.

Oh please, there were no guarantees in the old west. My point is that your right to bear arms is not 100% absolute at all times, and in all places. You can't carry a gun on to a plane, or into a court house, in Montana you can carry in many places without a permit, but you can't carry in a bank. Different jurisdictions adopt different laws, even when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

When you went into a town where you had to check your guns, the implied contract was "you turn in your guns, and we make sure no one else has one either". That is the same compact when you enter a controlled area like an airport or a courthouse. In those spaces there are armed people right there ready to protect you.

The above situation does not apply in the streets of a major or even minor city, or in a suburban or rural area.