davsco
Ultimate Member
everyone says go ahead and ban 'assault weapons' and everything else. the courts will set us free. except when they don't.
everyone says go ahead and ban 'assault weapons' and everything else. the courts will set us free. except when they don't.
everyone says go ahead and ban 'assault weapons' and everything else. the courts will set us free. except when they don't.
Finally, the people/the Citizens, individually and collectively, have the ultimate power and authority to determine if a "law" is unconstitutional, because the people are the sovereigns in America.
We knew this was going to happen when CA9 revolted over the Panel decision and went en banc. Wolf and Co. will have to appeal this ruling before going to SCOTUS. I feel this could stand a chance in the current SCOTUS composition...
We knew this was going to happen when CA9 revolted over the Panel decision and went en banc. Wolf and Co. will have to appeal this ruling before going to SCOTUS. I feel this could stand a chance in the current SCOTUS composition...
We knew this was going to happen when CA9 revolted over the Panel decision and went en banc. Wolf and Co. will have to appeal this ruling before going to SCOTUS. I feel this could stand a chance in the current SCOTUS composition...
Citizen nullification.
Marbury v Madison:
Sounds fine in theory. In practice, the GOV can just keep escalating force until they ultimately prevail. Have anything in your safe that works against an A-10 or Apache?
There are things that are easily done to eliminate that kind of threat.
Sounds fine in theory. In practice, the GOV can just keep escalating force until they ultimately prevail. Have anything in your safe that works against an A-10 or Apache?
It’s a smug question. How’d that work out in Afghanistan? Do you believe every Apache and A-10 pilot/crew will all be on the side of tyrants? Do you think soldiers will all be willing to shoot their neighbors?
Sounds fine in theory. In practice, the GOV can just keep escalating force until they ultimately prevail. Have anything in your safe that works against an A-10 or Apache?
A hot CW2 holds no appeal for me at all.
Nor even a cold one.
I think this was the 9th using their one last chance to drop a Baby Ruth in the swimming pool, two days before the SC considers cert for a second Clement-run NY carry case.
I would motion for a rehearing based on the fact that they introduced a new argument at the en banc level that was not previously raised.
Yes. They previously argued that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate standard. They hired Neal Katyal who did a good job introducing a new argument primarily based on history and tradition. Nobody could really respond because all briefs were due at the same time.