-
-
Not quite. "In your home" is where the right is most acute. To insist that anything outside the home is automatically outside the "core" of the right is disingenuous.
Osterweil doesn't (at the district level)? Seriously???And none of your examples went against that core Constitutional right.The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.
The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.Comment
-
One person's "disingenuous" is another's factual assertion about the current state of Constitutional law. I'm not saying what the right "should be", I'm saying what it current is.
Even in SF, you have a right to a handgun in the home for defense. SF is testing the boundaries with "safe storage", but they acknowledge the core right.
A lower court got it wrong and was corrected by a higher court: the Republic is doomed.
-- MichaelComment
-
Hey, I'm just going by the words of Heller here.
If the "current state of Constitutional law" means only that which is held, and limits that which is held to the facts of the case, then "Constitutional law" should be much narrower for every other right than how the courts have been treating them.
On what basis, then, should the right to keep and bear arms be singled out and treated differently than any other right as regards how to interpret and apply jurisprudence?
True enough.Even in SF, you have a right to a handgun in the home for defense. SF is testing the boundaries with "safe storage", but they acknowledge the core right.
No. A lower court got it wrong and the higher court mooted the question. It did not correct the lower court at all. The "reasoning" of the lower court remains intact, because the higher court did not contradict it at all.A lower court got it wrong and was corrected by a higher court: the Republic is doomed.Last edited by kcbrown; 10-10-2014, 2:54 PM.The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.
The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.Comment
-
When the Court of Appeals reverses a decision, showing that the lower court was wrong, and says that there was no reason to examine the Constitutionality of the issue in the first place, most reasonable people would come to the conclusion that said lower court decision has been negated.
The final words are yours: I'm done.
-- MichaelComment
-
The decision has been negated. The reasoning behind the decision has not. The only question is whether or not that reasoning can be cited. I suspect, for cases like this, it can. But if it cannot, then you are right about this, at least with respect to the jurisprudential effects.
However, since the reasoning has not been negated, it can at the very least be recreated by another lower court, or even this same court.
The point here is that it's not enough for the higher court to say that the lower court got it wrong. It matters why the lower court got it wrong. Both things are what determine the jurisprudence of the case.
Unfortunately, we will never know whether the 2nd Circuit would have sided with the district court had there been no way for it to avoid the Constitutional question.Last edited by kcbrown; 10-10-2014, 6:10 PM.The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.
The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.Comment
-
I hope that if something actually happens that there will be a new thread saying what happened.
As it stands right now with a lot of these threads there is so much speculation and argument about what one thinks a court might some day do that one can't really figure out if something happened.
Shucks, when Gura recently came onto the forum to announce victory, that thread was actually shut down and everyone was directed back into the original morass of mostly irrelevant garbage - and Gura went away (so far as I could tell, anyway).
Yeah, from my perspective the relevant gets stopped (even if inadvertently) and the mostly irrelevant just rolls on.CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that).Comment
-
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.
The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.Comment
-
I have a dream:
That someday I'll see the Pena v. Cid thread at the top because there's been a decision handed down and not because two quasi-legal types are playing one upsmanship over what the court may or may not do.Last edited by Bruce; 10-14-2014, 6:29 PM.Comment
-
Bruce,
Thank you. I have mistakenly click on this post thinking something has actually happened, perhaps some relevant update.NRA Life Member
2nd Amendment Rights SupporterComment
-
Agree as well"Hence it happened that all the armed prophets conquered, all the unarmed perished." - Niccolo MachiavelliComment
Tweet
I think you would agree that such a marriage is most unsound. 
There are currently 11930 users online. 148 members and 11782 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 7:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment