Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Rammstein, Mar 30, 2007.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/R ... p?ID=27587
is a 'nomitive absolute'. The definition of which is: A complete sentence having no grammatical connection with the principal part of the sentence.
The 2A is structuraly the same leaving it out: (T)he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Don't know who this Barry Loberfeld guy is, but I do like the way he explains things. Interesting article.
Thanks for posting that one Ramm.
Thanks, Ramm...that was a good read.
It's a long read, but a good one.
MP...you catch the part about Bork?
Yes, I have known about and been disappointed by that for a long time, but, in fairness to Bork, he has never given the Second Amendment the same study and consideration as he has other parts of the constitution. The only quotes I have ever seen from him on the subject are dismissive and short, with no serious attempt to examine the issue.
If Parker goes up to the S. Ct., I wonder if his refusal to examine the Founder's original intent relating to the Second Amendment will continue?
This case should be a no-brainer for SCOTUS. However after seeing the Kelo case and the Campain finance case who really knows for sure.
I would not be suprised to see an outcome simular to the 2000 election with opinions all over the place. Two or three supporting opinions and three or four desenting opinions.
If this case turns out strongly in our favor, this case will be studied by not just law students for years.
Roe v Wade
Brown vs Board
If we lose the political fallout will be interesting to say the least.
MP, Bork says some interesting things about the way society should be set up and the restrictions placed on it. With the more I read about him the more I am glad he is not a justice.
Ber950, if we lose the SCOTUS case then I would say that it would be wise to stock up on three things: rifles, ammo, and magazines.
Report back after you read The Tempting of America.
If Parker loses, nothing will change in Georgia.
But...it will be an indication of things to come.
Or the S. Ct. could refuse to hear it . . .
I don't think thats likely, but not a real problem unless the full district court reverses the current decsion. If the current decision stands with the supremes refusing to hear it, then DC gets to live with having their ban shoved in their face and the next case quotes this case as precedent. All in all not the worst case scenario.
I skimmed the article. Would somebody here who has read it and carefully considered it please venture an opinion as to how its author would suggest various gun control schemes would fare under a properly skeptical 2nd Amendment analysis?
Would Miller still be convicted, posthumously, of violating the National Firearms Act for possessing his sawed-off shotgun?
Would Dr. Emerson still be denied his right to own a 9mm pistol during that time that he was subject to a domestic violence restraining order?
Could Ms. Parker keep a loaded and working gun in her apartment in Washington D.C.? Could the City still force her to unload it or lock it up when she leaves the apartment vacant? Can the City force her to register it? How about annual registration?
How about the dude who left a box of ammo in his car when he drove to Mexico, thus committing a felony offense against MEXICAN LAW, which now permanently bars him from possessing any gun or ammo under U.S. law as well?