3
0

Liberals hate the bill of rights.


 invite response                
2016 Feb 21, 4:43pm   20,639 views  44 comments

by FortWayne   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

- 1st amendment when others disagree with them. PC culture will do all they can to squash disagreement and ban religion even.
- 2nd amendment because they want only government Storm Troopers and Stalinists to have guns, fuck average people.
- 4th amendment when they want to search and see what others have.
- 5th amendment - because as socialists they love to redistribute other peoples stuff.
- 6th amendment when non black person shoots black person, it's instant public lynching and conviction if liberals had it their way.
- 10th amendment - liberals hate states rights when they disagree with their own views of homosexuality.

If I spend more time, I can probably find cases where liberals assault the rest of the rights as well.

#politics

Comments 1 - 40 of 44       Last »     Search these comments

1   Tenpoundbass   2016 Feb 21, 4:59pm  

No they just hate us.

They thoroughly expect the system as is to work for them right out of the box. They have to massage it, to get the desired results they would like for the rest of us.

2   Ceffer   2016 Feb 21, 5:04pm  

If Liberals didn't believe in fucked up shit, they wouldn't be liberals any more.

3   bob2356   2016 Feb 21, 6:04pm  

FortWayne says

- 1st amendment when others disagree with them. PC culture will do all they can to squash disagreement and ban religion even.

- 2nd amendment because they want only government Storm Troopers and Stalinists to have guns, not average people.

- 4th amendment when they want to search and see what others have.

- 5th amendment - because as socialists they love to redistribute other peoples stuff.

- 6th amendment when non black person shoots black person, it's instant public lynching and conviction if liberals had it their way.

- 10th amendment - liberals hate states rights when they disagree with their own views of homosexuality.

A life, a life, my kingdom for a life.

Maybe if everyone on patnet pitched in we could come with with $1.00 and you could buy yourself a life, or at least a clue.

4   HEY YOU   2016 Feb 21, 7:46pm  

What's the concern about the bill of rights?
Reagan & Iran-Contra,Iraq has WMD.
There is no law or consequences.

5   tatupu70   2016 Feb 22, 5:40am  

Do you ever post anything besides strawman arguments where you completely mischaracterize what liberals believe?

6   Tenpoundbass   2016 Feb 22, 6:26am  

HEY YOU says

What's the concern about the bill of rights?

Reagan & Iran-Contra,Iraq has WMD.

There is no law or consequences.

That's foreign policy, they don't have the right to do crap, "WE" on the otherhand...

7   FortWayne   2016 Feb 22, 7:34am  

tatupu70 says

Do you ever post anything besides strawman arguments where you completely mischaracterize what liberals believe?

I don't mischaracterize anything, this is what your peeps do politically. If you don't like it, send Hillary an email and let her know that her left wing bullshit is out of touch with reality.

8   tatupu70   2016 Feb 22, 7:46am  

FortWayne says

I don't mischaracterize anything, this is what your peeps do politically.

lol. Let's see:

1st Amendment---Who wants to make America a Christian nation (and ban other religions). That's Republicans. Dems want freedom to choose. (any or none)
2nd Amendment is a right to bear arms. Unless you think anyone should be free to own nuclear weapons, you already support restrictions. It's just a matter of where you draw the line.
4th Amendment--Infringement on freedoms and liberties is another Republican driven agenda. Patriot Act is almost universally supported by Reps. Opposition is more on the Dem. side. 30% of Dems voted against it, vs. 1.4% of Republicans in the House.
5th Amendment- wtf are you talking about here. The 5th Amendment is the right to not incriminate oneself.
6th Amendment-- Again you are mistaken. Liberals want fair trials which is what the 6th Amendment is all about. Even when case after case shows police lie, plant evidence, abuse prisoners, etc. you continue to deny. Video doesn't lie.
10th Amendment--States don't have the right to infringe on their citizens rights that have already been given in the Constitution.

You mischaracterize everything because you don't want to open your eyes and learn the truth.

9   tatupu70   2016 Feb 22, 8:41am  

Ironman says

Look who posts that question, the KING of strawman arguments, who NEVER posts facts and data to support HIS assertions and opinions, then completely changes the topic when called out on it....

The problem with that statement is you clearly don't even understand what a strawman argument is, so your criticism falls flat.

Have you found that post where you explained what is wrong with the US healthcare system yet? And gave your recommendations for how to fix it based on your "insider" knowledge? I'm really curious to read it.

10   indigenous   2016 Feb 22, 8:46am  

What the Libbys fail to understand, amongst other things, is the definition of negative rights.

11   elliemae   2016 Feb 22, 8:48am  

FortWayne says

1st amendment when others disagree with them. PC culture will do all they can to squash disagreement and ban religion even.

- 2nd amendment because they want only government Storm Troopers and Stalinists to have guns, fuck average people.

- 4th amendment when they want to search and see what others have.

- 5th amendment - because as socialists they love to redistribute other peoples stuff.

- 6th amendment when non black person shoots black person, it's instant public lynching and conviction if liberals had it their way.

- 10th amendment - liberals hate states rights when they disagree with their own views of homosexuality.

Do you even read what you are writing before you post it?

I want to buy me some of whatever med you're taking - without the extreme paranoia side effects you're experiencing.

12   tatupu70   2016 Feb 22, 9:02am  

indigenous says

What the Libbys fail to understand, amongst other things, is the definition of negative rights.

Yes, liberals tend to understand the definition of actual terms and leave the made up crap to conservatives.

13   tatupu70   2016 Feb 22, 9:13am  

Ironman says

Have you got that extensive list of Senators and Congressmen that are supporting Bernie yet that I asked for?

Yep, and I'll post it as soon as you post your recommendations for fixing the US healthcare system.

14   tatupu70   2016 Feb 22, 9:37am  

Ironman says

When did I announce I was running for President and claim I was going to fix it?

I don't think you did. You did, however, say that you worked in the industry for decades and knew what had to be done to fix it. So, we'd really like to hear your ideas.

15   tatupu70   2016 Feb 22, 9:59am  

Ironman says

So don't change the subject, your boy Bernie IS running and said HE was going to fix it, so answer my question and explain how, in reality, it's going to be paid for. I already outline where I said his plan won't work.... Prove me wrong.

The subject always has been your inability to back up your statement that you have vast knowledge of what needs to be done to fix the US healthcare system. We're still waiting for you to detail your ideas.

Ever since then it's been one large weasel job by you. First you said you had already posted it multiple times and I just needed to find it. I looked, realized you are lying, and called you on it. Now, you just bob, weave, and change the subject every time. What's the problem?? Just post your ideas.

16   FortWayne   2016 Feb 22, 1:12pm  

tatupu70 says

10th Amendment--States don't have the right to infringe on their citizens rights that have already been given in the Constitution.

Tell that to the gun owners or religious folks today. It's the new Negro for the liberals.

17   tatupu70   2016 Feb 22, 1:40pm  

FortWayne says

tatupu70 says

10th Amendment--States don't have the right to infringe on their citizens rights that have already been given in the Constitution.

Tell that to the gun owners or religious folks today. It's the new Negro for the liberals.

You didn't respond to my question--do you think individuals should have the right to own nuclear weapons?

18   tatupu70   2016 Feb 22, 2:09pm  

That's the point. We already (rightly) restrict an individual's right to bear arms. And I bet I can't find anyone who doesn't agree that we absolutely need to have such restrictions. So, it boils down to where do you draw the line. At flamethrowers? Submachine guns? That's a discussion that reasonable people can have.

But, Ft. Wayne thinks that any restriction on arms is breaking the 2nd amendment. I'm just showing him that isn't true.

19   FortWayne   2016 Feb 22, 2:50pm  

tatupu70 says

You didn't respond to my question--do you think individuals should have the right to own nuclear weapons?

Because you are a dumbass.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/30-appeal-to-extremes

20   bob2356   2016 Feb 22, 3:15pm  

FortWayne says

Try every single proposed or passed anti-gun legislation, don't even have to cherry pick, every single one

So name one along with who passed it. You've had chance after chance.

Imaginary laws never turn you down, when all the others turn you away they're around, Imagination's unreal.

21   georgeliberte   2016 Feb 22, 3:39pm  

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/22/how-umberto-eco-tagged-today-s-fascists.html I think this post fits many of Umberto Eco's criteria for Ur-fascism.

22   MisdemeanorRebel   2016 Feb 22, 4:02pm  

Fascism was a counter-enlightenment philosophy that embraced primacy of religion*, race, and it's expression as the nation state being above the individual, underwritten by corporations and irrendentist. It differed from other counter-enlightenment reactionaries by downplaying the role of a Hereditary Ruler and putting the health of the Nation ahead of any other consideration.

Trump certainly is not Fascist, nor is PEGIDA or Britain First or UKIP. The fail every test: not explicitly racist, not overtly religious, not believing the nation state is above the individual, certainly NOT underwritten by corporations (who almost uniformly give money/support to "diversity" and mass immigration in the modern era for wage crushing and rentier income, despising nationalist parties and politicians and disliking any welfare programs, esp. affordable housing construction), and no "We wuz robbed by foreigners/secret plot" mentality, other than healthy suspicion of why wealthy elites are so intent on immigration. If anything the aforementioned groups would be utterly un-controversial in any Western Democracy from 1900-1980. Nor are they against Modernity in the slightest, but in the case of the latter three, see Modernity as beset upon by Religious Reactionaries imported in vast numbers.

* Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Ante Pavelic, Antonescu, etc. always praised religion, the latter three were exceptionally pro-religion and empowered the clergy to a high degree.

23   FortWayne   2016 Feb 22, 5:43pm  

bob2356 says

So name one along with who passed it. You've had chance after chance.

Do you want me to categorize them alphabetically for you too, and label them? You liberals, still looking for a hand out as usual.

You can start with AB 96, AB 1134, SB 347, and SB 707, and that's only a drop in the bucket...

Just about every other legislation passed by Democrats is there to take away some right or another, and turn it into a privilege they politicians can dole out to those who they favor. Background checks, waiting periods, restrictions on what kind of gun you can own. You cant fucking carry concealed or open in CA anymore. Used to be able to, when we had rights, when constitution wasn't just toilet paper for the Nazi Democratic party.

At bare minimum you could have gotten off your ass and at least looked at wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California

Here you go, Jerry Brown banning Open carry in CA.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB144&search_keywords=

24   bob2356   2016 Feb 22, 8:51pm  

FortWayne says

Do you want me to categorize them alphabetically for you too, and label them? You liberals, still looking for a hand out as usual.

You can start with AB 96, AB 1134, SB 347, and SB 707, and that's only a drop in the bucket...

What a joke. These are your threats to the second amendment? Laughable. Paranoia will destroy ya.

You are really that bothered you can't open carry an UNLOADED pistol any more? Try stuffing socks in your crotch if you are that insecure. .

25   tatupu70   2016 Feb 23, 5:01am  

FortWayne says

Because you are a dumbass.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/30-appeal-to-extremes

Except that's not at all what I'm doing. I'm using an extreme to show that there are already restrictions on the 2nd Amendment and you AGREE with those restrictions. That's not a logical fallacy at all. Your 2nd Amendment rights have been infringed for a long time.

26   FortWayne   2016 Feb 23, 8:52am  

bob2356 says

You are really that bothered you can't open carry an UNLOADED pistol any more? Try stuffing socks in your crotch if you are that insecure. .

Son if you knew places where I go and people I see, you'd pee your pants before you went there. Bob the armchair champ.

27   CDon   2016 Feb 23, 8:58am  

FortWayne says

Just about every other legislation passed by Democrats is there to take away some right or another, and turn it into a privilege they politicians can dole out to those who they favor. Background checks, waiting periods, restrictions on what kind of gun you can own. You cant fucking carry concealed or open in CA anymore. Used to be able to, when we had rights, when constitution wasn't just toilet paper for the Nazi Democratic party.

These arguments are so stupid. Tatupu is right in that there is Constitutional a line in the sand between a bb gun and a nuclear weapon. There always has been, there always will be. Was Scalia a liberal when he pointed out that we have banned citizens from having fully automatic machineguns since before you were born? https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html

Or what about items like this Coehorn which were apparently used my neighborhood after the civil war for voter intimidation. Were the guys who restricted your use to these liberals?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coehorn#/media/File:Coehorn_mortar_at_Fort_King_George,_Darien,_GA,_US.jpg

In any event, what really annoys me about these arguments is you (a) don't even know what your rights are (b) continue to speak out vocally and repeatedly and from a position of ignorance and (c) refuse to learn in more detail other than what your favorite tv program or website told you.

In an effort to sell ads and make money, your media masters are playing you like a fool. The select stories that have a tiny kernel of truth, wrap it in a gross exaggeration, and package it in a way which will emotionally push your buttons of fear and anger. You dutifully tune in, gobble down what they feed you, and they then laugh hysterically at you as you lash out against things that never were /Jailing+of+Christians+has+began+in+US

While this has undoubtedly happened to all of us regarding an issue that we only superficially care about (I remember one story about Japanese Scientists turning shit into meat which duped a few people here) the issues in this post are the very core of your being and your 7,000+ post history. So consider this a challenge to you Ft Wayne - what I am explaining to you and I hope you now learn is that there is a constitutional line in the sand on the type of weaponry that you can possess, and it has always been this way. You are free to disagree with your ca lawmakers on where they think that line is, but don't think for a second that the 2nd Amendment was intended to allow you access to whatever sort of weaponry you may want.

28   indigenous   2016 Feb 23, 9:13am  

CDon says

Japanese Scientists turning shit into meat

Why didn't AF tell us about this? Is there a connection between this and Jack in the Box?

29   FortWayne   2016 Feb 23, 9:40am  

CDon says

These arguments are so stupid. Tatupu is right in that there is Constitutional a line in the sand between a bb gun and a nuclear weapon.

And where does the constitution say that my rights to bear arms can be infringed upon? You can't carry it anywhere anytime unless it's in a lock box if you are in CA, and there are even more restrictions there too. But it's not universal, it's by county. So you can have 2 people treated completely different under the law, which is injustice, because we are no longer possess equal rights. Some can own and carry, and some can't. You'd go ape shit if you had same restrictions on freedom of speech, and you will one day when PC police finally gets their way.

Don't come crying when it flips on you, because government that takes away rights from it's citizens is what YOU asked for.

30   CDon   2016 Feb 23, 10:06am  

Ironman says

First, Scalia only delivered the "Opinion of the Court" . There's no reference where he argued any points.

Just FYI, but that is how it works. 2 or 3 justices circulate drafts to others who either sign off or not. If 5 agree, it becomes the law, if they disagree and sign the other competing draft, it is the dissent (i.e. not the law).

Ironman says

When you start allowing people (even the SC) to "interpret" a document written back in the 1700's, and try to "fit" these NEW "interpretations" into the current century, that causes issues. And this is even before you consider the Political leanings of the "interpreters".

Again, this is the way it has always been going back to Marbury v Madison in 1804. The media highlights the cases that go 5-4, but they don't point out the 6-3 7-2 or 9-0 decisions which are still common to this day. There are ample examples of justices saying "I disagree with this law in that I think its stupid" but they still uphold it as being constitutional. The one you may be familiar with is the Obamacare ruling when Roberts betrayed his personal feelings and upheld it (6-3) as a valid taxing power under Art I Sec VIII.

31   CDon   2016 Feb 23, 10:22am  

FortWayne says

And where does the constitution say that my rights to bear arms can be infringed upon?

Right here - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

And here (laws preventing the transport of sawed off shotguns is not a violation of the 2nd amendment). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

If you truly care, I suggest you learn more before you continue to flail about.

FortWayne says

Don't come crying when it flips on you, because government that takes away rights from it's citizens is what YOU asked for

Believe me, I know. It is 10 years later and I still have SERIOUS misgivings about Kelo v. New London - which IMO is one of the top 3 impactful cases delivered in the last 30 years. You guys haven't heard about it because its about property rights which isn't particularly sexy as per the media providers. Thankfully, the process to invalidate the offending part of it is working as many states are now modifying their own constitutions to raise their citizens rights above the Kelo standard as determined by SCOTUS.

32   CDon   2016 Feb 23, 11:27am  

Ironman says

I get that, but it doesn't make it correct or right, just something we have to live with.

If the Constitution is a living document, the interpretation of it is by definition "right". And no, it is not something you have to live with. SCOTUS delivers a holding which your elected leaders can always overturn if they deem it important enough. In most cases a law to make it conform with the Scotus opinion is enough. In rare cases (i.e. Roe v. Wade) a constitutional amendment which happens about once every 13 years on average. I know it doesn't seem that way via the lens of what happens in splashy headlines, but in the long (i.e. centuries long) run, the process works far more efficiently than the ideological carping that dominates the "news" now.

If fox and brietbart et al. had been around in 1877, you would see hysterical screeching and polemics about "liberals" and "big govt" VIOLATING THE SECOND AMENDMENT because we cant use things like this kickass Coehorn anymore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coehorn#/media/File:Coehorn_mortar_at_Fort_King_George,_Darien,_GA,_US.jpg

If you believe this restriction on our 2nd amendment rights is reasonable, ironically, your great great grandfathers would be calling you (CIC and Ft Wayne) both liberal pussies for not tirelessly advocating to bring back the Coehorn as per the original, static unchanging view of what is permissible under the flag wrapped notion of the "right to bear arms". However, the standards can and do change over the centuries, and its only because the Constitution allows this to happen.

33   indigenous   2016 Feb 23, 11:40am  

What is your take on the John Marshall court? What is your take on SCOTUS always conforming with any legislation passed by congress, the ACA e.g. and has done such since the 1930s?

34   CDon   2016 Feb 23, 1:21pm  

indigenous says

What is your take on the John Marshall court?

As a jurist, I hold the Marshall court in the highest regard. IMO this body is the true founding father which no one talks about.

indigenous says

What is your take on SCOTUS always conforming with any legislation passed by congress, the ACA e.g. and has done such since the 1930s?

Personally, I believe that FDR was the last true threat to our democracy and anything enacted by any president since is merely a blip and blather for the punditry which barely moves the needle much either way. FDR's courtpacking plan was stunning in its audacity and no act by any president since (and really I do mean that) has come within a stones throw of how controversial his plan was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

However as a jurist, I now reluctantly accept that the broad expansion of the govt since the 1930s is the now the law of the land, and I would hold my nose and faithfully uphold any law that was drafted now that fit within the confines of the rulings starting with West Coast v. Parrish (see above) and ending with US v. Lopez in 1995. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Also, I do not agree that since Lopez that SCOTUS has simply rolled over the way politicos and biased types like to have you believe. Lopez was a massive shot across the bow, and has been very influential in causing congress to (mostly) draft its bills within those confines. As a matter of fact, the interesting thing about the ACA is that Congress wrote it with an eye toward Lopez, the Administration made the case it was valid per the confines Lopez, yet SCOTUS expressly rejected that argument as many (myself included) expected because it went further than Lopez allowed.

That said, the only reason the ACA survived is because SCOTUS found it to be a tax (which it very clearly is, despite the administration trying to say it wasn't) and no credible person will argue that Congress exceeded its authority as taxing is an express power under Art I Sec VIII.

35   indigenous   2016 Feb 23, 1:38pm  

Thanks for the detailed answer. I will have to read up on Lopez.

I will consider what you say. But it is beyond my radar screen how you can be an ardent supporter or even consider the Marshall court. What am I missing?

36   CDon   2016 Feb 23, 2:05pm  

indigenous says

Thanks for the detailed answer. I will have to read up on Lopez.

You are welcome. For a background on Lopez do a search or two on the Commerce Clause as that is the legal "hook" congress used 1933-1995 to pass laws.

indigenous says

But it is beyond my radar screen how you can be an ardent supporter or even consider the Marshall court. What am I missing?

I don't know. What have you read about Marshall that shaped your views of him?

37   FortWayne   2016 Feb 23, 4:43pm  

CDon says

Right here - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

But come on man, that's a biased opinion of someone who decided there are limits to ownership. But what we have in CA is completely anti-ownership. You can't carry it outside your residence, that's ridiculous already. And there are constant assaults on what can be bought or owned, because goal is to completely take away guns from law abiding poor citizens.

CDon says

Believe me, I know. It is 10 years later and I still have SERIOUS misgivings about Kelo v. New London

I never knew where that eminent domain originated from. Thanks for the info. That sure explains why we had so many eminent domain petitions

38   CDon   2016 Feb 23, 5:25pm  

FortWayne says

But come on man, that's a biased opinion of someone who decided there are limits to ownership.

Damn Right. That biased someone was Scalia, writing for the court, and delivering the most important decision on the 2nd amendment since the 8-0 restriction in Miller. It is their job to say what the law IS and they did it. If you don't like that, you have redress via amendment.

FortWayne says

But what we have in CA is completely anti-ownership. You can't carry it outside your residence, that's ridiculous already.

Yep. You are right to carp that CA liberals are making it difficult to do stuff with your gun. If the CA legislature made it illegal to juggle your unloaded gun in public, there is nothing in the 2nd amendment (as interpreted in US V Miller and Later DC v Heller) which would stop them. This is where the 10th amendment and the honored conservative doctrine of States Rights kicks in. In Arkansas, you can do just about whatever you want as they decided that's whats best for them. In CA they went another way. If you don't like it, you can elect new people to overturn that, or you can move.

FortWayne says

And there are constant assaults on what can be bought or owned, because goal is to completely take away guns from law abiding poor citizens.

No matter what bloviating or posturing you are hearing, either for or against that stated "goal" it would not survive DC v Heller. Remember, the 2nd amendment is not a ceiling but a floor, a floor under which no body can pass a law which will give you less rights than Heller. You will always have certain possessory rights in ALL STATES, even CA.

FortWayne says

I never knew where that eminent domain originated from. Thanks for the info. That sure explains why we had so many eminent domain petitions

It pleases me to see that you cared enough to actually look that up and see what that case was about. Eminent Domain has been around for 200 years, but the shocking aspect of Kelo was it took away rights you had for the first 180 years of this country. IOW, eminent domain is another "floor" law, but in Kelo, the floor was shockingly lowered even further.

Yes, even in CA they are actively working within the confines of Kelo to actually raise your rights as a citizen and landowner. Unlike a lot of the posturing in other issues, this is a issue where your locality can either work for or against you, and by and large your voice will be much more likely to be heard if you speak up. This is they type of case where you should focus your energies, starting with (a) an understanding what we have now and (b) voicing your informed opinion to others to spread the message either for or against whatever your local CA body is trying to do.

39   CDon   2016 Feb 23, 6:45pm  

Good question. As to the floor, the only thing we know for sure is Scalia (being a textualist) made reference to arms "in common use at the time" (i.e. long guns and hand guns). It is probably north of that, but below the ceiling which is "dangerous or unusual" which includes for sure (a) fully automatic tommy guns (Miller) (b) the various hand cannons, mortars and explosives like the awesome Coehorn I showed you and (c) things created or intended for the military (tanks, nukes, grenades). These are the only things known for sure as the 2nd amendment is one of the least settled sections of the Constitution as less than a dozen cases have ever made it to SCOTUS.

Now as to where the real line is between that floor and ceiling, that is still undecided - the court specifically left that as an open question. That said, the thinking laid clear in various appellate cases is any sort of technology or modifications which will produce the ability for indiscriminate wanton killing can be restricted. This was at play with the tommy gun, the Coehorn, and any hand gun or long gun add on which will basically increase its ability for maximum, indiscriminate lethality.

By the same token, any add on or adaptation to a hand gun or long gun which makes it more efficient will probably be allowed. At a bare minimum, the improvements on the wheel lock and flint locks that the framers knew is clearly OK. New technology is not always restricted. For example, there I saw this story on a "smart" gun which when the shooter IDs the target and pulls the trigger, the gun can override the user for up to (I think) 2 seconds to allow the gun to determine when the shooters hand is the most stable and the target is still accessible, before the round is fired. Stuff like this which would prevent indiscriminate killing (i.e. squeezing off a round and hitting a bystander vs the target) likely will be allowed.

40   FortWayne   2016 Feb 23, 7:59pm  

CDon says

No matter what bloviating or posturing you are hearing, either for or against that stated "goal" it would not survive DC v Heller. Remember, the 2nd amendment is not a ceiling but a floor, a floor under which no body can pass a law which will give you less rights than Heller. You will always have certain possessory rights in ALL STATES, even CA.

Heller didn't ban carrying, yet CA banned it all. It's not much floor, it's the usual politicians going with pushing the limits of what they can get away with for political browbeating. I don't believe they care about constitutionality, they only care about what they want others to do and not do, the rest is self justification as usual.

Comments 1 - 40 of 44       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions