Neither is dressing like a woman it still is a right.We're talking what's Constitutional, Last I checked abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Neither is dressing like a woman it still is a right.We're talking what's Constitutional, Last I checked abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
Interesting you say that. Did you hear Sotomayor's interview yesterday?That's called interpretation.
I'm not arguing pro or anti with either simply stating it's not in specifically written in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. It's also not germane to the subject of the Constitutionality of firearms laws.Neither is dressing like a woman it still is a right.
You know there is a line on the 2nd amendment right? Can you own a nuclear weapon? And Clinton signed an assault weapon ban. Turns out it was constitutional because it happened.I'm not arguing pro or anti with either simply stating it's not in specifically written in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. It's also not germane to the subject of the Constitutionality of firearms laws.
No but to me it looks to be the age old lawyer trick of obfuscation.Interesting you say that. Did you hear Sotomayor's interview yesterday?
Sotomayor: It’s a mistake to believe ‘the law is clear’ in Supreme Court cases
Justice Sonia Sotomayor says “the biggest misconception people have” when Supreme Court rulings are weighed and handed down is that “the law is clear” to begin with.“Mo…thehill.com
She's right though. If the law was obvious, it wouldn't be constantly challenged. What Ron Paul thinks is constitutional is not the same was what Hillary thinks. Or Bush. Or Trump. Or Obama. They have all done unconstitutional things. Just ask the other party.No but to me it looks to be the age old lawyer trick of obfuscation.
That's due to individual or group interpretation that has been going on since the Constitution was ratified. The problem is it's been over interpreted too often by too many people which has muddied up the key component of all Constitutional law, Original Intent. I think what she was referring to is how narrow rulings can be seen by some as clear and all encompassing, they're more often not all encompassing.She's right though. If the law was obvious, it wouldn't be constantly challenged. What Ron Paul thinks is constitutional is not the same was what Hillary thinks. Or Bush. Or Trump. Or Obama. They have all done unconstitutional things. Just ask the other party.
Fail.Without even looking at any content herein, I'm going with "no" it's not constitutional.
How'd I do?
Or not.It probably will get thrown out by the courts at some point.
The pursuit of happiness.
Imagine your pissing and moaning, should some jurisdiction place the same permit requirement on the right to have an abortion.Fail.
The courts have upheld as Constitutional licensing and permit fees, that they do not manifest as an undue burden to the Second Amendment right.
You know there is a line on the 2nd amendment right? Can you own a nuclear weapon? And Clinton signed an assault weapon ban. Turns out it was constitutional because it happened.
Imagine your pissing and moaning, should some jurisdiction place the same permit requirement on the right to have an abortion.
Tell us again why you believe the TX abortion law is constitutional.
Indeed. "Bearable arms" -- those firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.You know there is a line on the 2nd amendment right?
Just like the abortion law in TX.And Clinton signed an assault weapon ban. Turns out it was constitutional because it happened.
Not everyone falls under "the people", just like not every weapon falls under "arms".You can't give loaded firearms to 100% of the population.
We don't want little kids waving loaded pistols around.
We don't want maniacs to have guns.
There's a law against felons owning guns.
So, you can't take the Second Amendment literally, because a lot of people aren't allowed guns.
Not everyone falls under "the people", just like not every weapon falls under "arms".
So, you -can- take it literally, you just have to understand the terms used.
Sure. So?I won't argue that point with you.
But at one time, "everyone" would've been white males who owned property.
Now "everyone" includes blacks, women, etc.
true?
Any weapon the military has, you want. Or else you are at a disadvantage. Isn't that right?Indeed. "Bearable arms" -- those firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.
Where do you think that draws the line, and why?
Just like the abortion law in TX.
San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.
The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.
Mayor Sam Liccardo, who introduced the two proposals last June after a Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority employee killed nine of his co-workers and himself, likened the insurance requirement to motorists having car insurance.
Tuesday Morning News Roundup
San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual...www.sfgate.com
The mass shooter who spawned this law was a well-paid, law-abiding employee up until the point he went apeshit and shot dead 9 of his coworkers.
He would've just bought the insurance.
Or maybe that's what the law is for? To provide compensation to the victims?
Doesn't make much sense to me.