Supreme Court may soon expand gun rights

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Thugs are extremists, they are in no way liberal. You sound more like them than any liberal could ever be.

Thugs are mostly offspring of democrats. Fatherless.

 

[martybegan]

It will come before the court as the ruling the Supremes just issued came before the court.

And then they will pass another law, and another. The issue is there is no direct consequence for legislators and governors for willfully ignoring an SC opinion.

 

[there4eyeM]

Hand grenades can be "born"; why is that infringed?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually the only "guns" James Madison was thinking of when he penned 2A were the flintlock pistol and musket. Of course the blunderbuss was still in use then too.
Madison could have never envisioned a scenario where any Joe Blow in America, including fools whom I wouldn't even trust to take out my goddamed trash, can "legally" get themselves any kind of high-tech, high capacity firearm they please.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . 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.
USSC DC v Heller

The Second Amendment is very clear about the context that the founders thought that individuals should have any kind of "constitutionally protected right" to possess firearms.
It was strictly in the context of a well REGULATED militia.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
USSC DC v Heller

Your complaints were addressed and discarded two decades ago.
Period.

 

[MagicMike]

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . 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.
USSC DC v Heller

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
USSC DC v Heller

Your complaints were addressed and discarded two decades ago.
Period.

Well, law is just fashion and fad anyway.
Roe v. Wade was on the books twice as long as Heller has been....and look what just happened to Roe.

Heller needs to go next.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, law is just fashion and fad anyway.
Roe v. Wade was on the books twice as long as Heller has been....and look what just happened to Roe.
Heller needs to go next.

I accept your concession.
Expalin why you think the overturn of Roe supports the over turn of Heller.

 

[there4eyeM]

The S.C. may have the final word, yet we see its word isn't always final. Firearms extremists may want to consider some form of reasonableness before their fellow citizens do something unreasonable to restrain excesses.

 

[M14 Shooter]

. Firearms extremists may want to consider some form of reasonableness before their fellow citizens do something unreasonable to restrain excesses.

Like.... what?