Four little words for our friends in CA while the courts quibble about the state of their rights. WWNC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump
1 in 4 now in the 4th circuit
Where is the 4th circuit? Is that us?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where is the 4th circuit? Is that us?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/about-the-court
Yes. Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
Four out of five being pro-gun, sigh.
But that doesn't really matter...it's the makeup of the bench that counts. You have judges that believe in the meaning of the Constitution and some who are faithless to it and follow political trends and fads.
from ROGERS v. GREWAL Discent. All equally true. I don't care what circuit or federal judges "say or write".The text of the Second Amendment guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As this Court explained in Heller, “[a]t the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’ ” 554 U. S., at 584. “When used with ‘arms,’ . . . the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation.” Ibid. Thus, the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “ ‘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.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted).
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/20...ieve-in-restrictions-on-the-2nd-amendment-no/
One of the most disheartening excuses is that “The Second Amendment isn’t absolute. It has its limits.”
This sounds an awful lot like Nancy Pelosi’s view of the Constitution.
And it’s flat-out wrong. You won’t find an asterisk after “shall not be infringed.” No terms and conditions apply. The Second Amendment absolutely prohibits any federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
from ROGERS v. GREWAL Discent. All equally true. I don't care what circuit or federal judges "say or write".
The truth is government can not take away what God has given us.. Free Will. John Locke is correct. Life, Liberty and Property!
Now get Maryland to buy it.https://dl.airtable.com/.attachment...9e63a83234/94d604dc/DuncanvBecerraOpinion.pdf
You read correctly, the 9th Circuit. They found that, even under intermediate scrutiny, it would fail.
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/20...ieve-in-restrictions-on-the-2nd-amendment-no/
One of the most disheartening excuses is that “The Second Amendment isn’t absolute. It has its limits.”
This sounds an awful lot like Nancy Pelosi’s view of the Constitution.
And it’s flat-out wrong. You won’t find an asterisk after “shall not be infringed.” No terms and conditions apply. The Second Amendment absolutely prohibits any federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
from ROGERS v. GREWAL Discent. All equally true. I don't care what circuit or federal judges "say or write".
The truth is government can not take away what God has given us.. Free Will. John Locke is correct. Life, Liberty and Property!
“The Second Amendment isn’t absolute. It has its limits.” This is not an excuse, it is essentially what Heller stated. More specifically Heller stated "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."
While you will not find an asterisk, you will find a number of historic case that have historical prohibitions such as concealed carry. To ignore these issues and insist that it is an absolute right is a position that is demonstrably false. You will continue to loose because you don't have a base to stand on.
There are ways to address these issues, just don't claim it is an absolute right.
And the issue becomes the fact that congress can repeal the 2nd amendment. Conservatives have long allowed minor infringements rather than open the possibility of repeal.
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Takes more than Congress to repeal an amendment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Correct, but that's how it starts. While it's unlikely to happen, who knows.Takes more than Congress to repeal an amendment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A right that cannot withstand any assertion, no matter how specious or unsubstantiated, of a "public safety" argument by the State, is no right at all.
That is what we're stuck with in 4th CA, 2nd CA, and a few others.
Correct, but that's how it starts. While it's unlikely to happen, who knows.