LOOK beyond the phrase game. SCOTUS admitted a couple fundamental things already. Technology advancement CANNOT be a rights limitation tool OR an ink pen a laptop and modern day printing press would not be protected - as they are technological advancements. Clearly, they ARE protected.
That said, and this goes to the "which level of Scrutiny applies" posturing. That's hogwash as well, in that SCOTUS did already direct lower courts as to Scrutiny. After a POINTED example about freedom of speech, protected even if people find the exercise off putting or even abhorrent, SCOTUS was straightforwardly CLEAR. "The Second Amendment is no different."
As the first cannot be limited by technology, neither can the Second. Additionally, SCOTUS wrote about the point that it matters not if folks don't Ike the "fit" today based on technology. The Amendments say what they say and it's "not their place" to declare them as saying something they do not.
RIGHT after heller, the Chicago Tribune admitted KNOWING that the only path forward for gun controllers was to seek repeal of the Second Amendment. The quick backlash caused them to drip the idea post haste.
@within the home@ was adopted instantly, grasping at straws, but it fell instantly ( I fart in Lisa madigans general direction) and now they are playing the common use card alongside the scrutiny card.
ENOUGH IF IT!
Because of the manufactured doctrine of selective incorporation, there can be no infringing OR abridging. Hoisted in their own petard, they are.
6 comments:
well, they have to write something even if its complete idiocy. And the court will e-a-t it up. yum yum yum.
People in robes cannot vote on a right. duh. Their rulings have no affect on me.
The message is clear:
2nd Amendment - Use it ot lose it!
Now's the day, and now's the hour;
See the front o' battle lour;
See approach proud [Obama]'s power—
Chains and slavery!
LOOK beyond the phrase game.
SCOTUS admitted a couple fundamental things already. Technology advancement CANNOT be a rights limitation tool OR an ink pen a laptop and modern day printing press would not be protected - as they are technological advancements. Clearly, they ARE protected.
That said, and this goes to the "which level of Scrutiny applies" posturing. That's hogwash as well, in that SCOTUS did already direct lower courts as to Scrutiny. After a POINTED example about freedom of speech, protected even if people find the exercise off putting or even abhorrent, SCOTUS was straightforwardly CLEAR. "The Second Amendment is no different."
As the first cannot be limited by technology, neither can the Second. Additionally, SCOTUS wrote about the point that it matters not if folks don't Ike the "fit" today based on technology. The Amendments say what they say and it's "not their place" to declare them as saying something they do not.
RIGHT after heller, the Chicago Tribune admitted KNOWING that the only path forward for gun controllers was to seek repeal of the Second Amendment. The quick backlash caused them to drip the idea post haste.
@within the home@ was adopted instantly, grasping at straws, but it fell instantly ( I fart in Lisa madigans general direction) and now they are playing the common use card alongside the scrutiny card.
ENOUGH IF IT!
Because of the manufactured doctrine of selective incorporation, there can be no infringing OR abridging. Hoisted in their own petard, they are.
I avoid CT as much as possible and when I have to go there for business I don't buy anything or spend the night. MOLON LABE!
"In common use at the time"...
Seems that 10s of millions of AKs and M4s make these platforms "in common use".
Assassination ala the Irish Republican Army. It's not too difficult of a concept to grasp.
Post a Comment