Yet another example of the courts twisting themselves into knots to try and rubberstamp unconstitutional governmental overreach and buttress government power over personal liberty.
He cites CASES not untested statues. Seeing as how we started with you claiming that untested statutes which were merely presumptively constitutional counted as "precedent" and had been cited as such in Heller, I've not conceded a thing and have in fact had you prove my point in your own words.
"have been upheld " ie have been tested IE are not untested statutes. Also: DICTA. Those statutes are not before the court, the court has ZERO power over them there. The only gun control measure that WAS before the court WAS utterly destroyed. Thanks for playing dear
Oooooh. Somebody is upset. Don't get mad. You lost an argument. Its not the end of the world. Better luck next time. LOL
Would this be the argument where you claimed untested statutes were cited as precedent in heller, and then cited a passage referring to US v Miller? Would this be the argument where you couldn't accept the same definition from 3 different legal dictionaries? The one I just won? Yeah sure sparky
How does this mean untested? "...have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues." Repeated emojis are your admission of defeat. Its ok. Better luck next time. LOL
The only one claiming that passage cites untested statutes would be you sparky. UPHELD. IE TRIED IN COURT.
Yes they were upheld. Gun control upheld under the second amendment. You forgot what you are arguing. Hilarious!
As well as an excess of one trillion dollars annually just to bring the manpower up to a level that may have a chance at enforcing the paperwork mandate.
It was proven through citation of the number of federally licensed firearm dealers, the number of ATF agents, the ratio between the two, and the starting salary an ATF agent is paid annually, in order to show exactly how many agents would have to be hired, and how much it would cost to do such, just to make routine enforcement a possibility.
Ok, Educate me? And, explain what it has to do with anything? If I sell you a gun, does it at some future date mean I have the right to take it back?
Except for the fact that it is not the original seller of the firearm who is making the effort at reclaiming it. Becoming a felon involves due process of law.
The quote VG included has been edited to omit an important bit of the opinion... here is the actual text, highliting the missing text.... The missing phrase is important to understanding the scope of the opinion. The petition in front of the Court did not include being asked to rule on broader 2nd A issues or those things highlighted in italics. The opinion does not cast doubt on those items, because their case did not include judicial review of them, not because they were being upheld. Their ruling was limited by the petition in front of the court.
Nope. They did not have to mention them at all. Scalia made a point of saying previous gun control has been upheld as constitutional. There is not other way to read it.
I disagree, he made a point of what was not under review, and since the full scope of the 2nd wasn’t in review, the opinion of the court did not challenge other previous court findings. Nothing other than the petition in front of the court was upheld.
