Democrats should engage the right wing with dialogue that realistic and legally sound. It is a political mistake to allow the right wing to define the issue.
By the way, the late Justice Scalia provided a wise and wonderful testimony on how Americans should be living their lives. He had good doctors to help with his medical issues and he lived and enjoyed life to the very end.
July 29, 2016
By Thomas M. DeFrank
...Scalia, (click here) a card-carrying conservative and stalwart of the Court’s right-leaning majority, told “Fox News Sunday” that the Second Amendment’s language allowing citizens the right to own weapons doesn’t mean they can own any weapon they want.
By the way, the late Justice Scalia provided a wise and wonderful testimony on how Americans should be living their lives. He had good doctors to help with his medical issues and he lived and enjoyed life to the very end.
July 29, 2016
By Thomas M. DeFrank
...Scalia, (click here) a card-carrying conservative and stalwart of the Court’s right-leaning majority, told “Fox News Sunday” that the Second Amendment’s language allowing citizens the right to own weapons doesn’t mean they can own any weapon they want.
“There are some limitations that can be imposed,” Scalia said. “What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the (future) time.”
In a controversial 2008 decision, the Supreme Court declared a handgun ban enacted by the District of Columbia unconstitutional, but the majority noted that, nonetheless, gun ownership was not an unlimited right, said Scalia, who wrote the opinion in that case.
“It will have to be decided in future cases what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible,” he added. “Some undoubtedly are.”...
The Gun Lobby doesn't discuss this one. The Friedman v. City of Highland Park is about assault weapon bans. Considering the Court refused to hear it, that can be viewed as a precedent.
December 7, 2015
By NCC Staff
On Monday morning, (click here) the United States Supreme Court denied a potentially significant case on the ability of some Americans to own assault weapons.
The case of Friedman v. City of Highland Park has been listed in recent months for consideration by the nine Supreme Court Justices in private conference. It takes a minimum for four Justices to agree to hear an appeal before the full Court during its current term.
Without announcing the vote count in private conference today, the Supreme Court declined to accept the appeal from Dr. Arie Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association. They believed the suburban Illinois city violated their Second Amendment rights when it passed the ownership ban on various semi-automatic weapons, as well as a ban on ammunition clips that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition....
The primary argument of the Gun Lobby regarding 2nd Amendment Rights is that the government can never be trusted to uphold freedom and democracy; therefore, it is up to the citizens to defend their Constitution. That is an extremist political view and one not subscribed to by the courts.
Take this on. There is no reason to be concerned about confronting the dangers of our citizens. Move forward with weapon bans that threaten the country and it's citizens. This is crazy. Why would the Court allow enough fire power within the country to "so call defend the US Constitution?" If there is enough weaponry and ammunition with the country to defend the US Constitution with a bloody assault against the government; who is to say that same war machine can't overthrow the government when it is not contentious? The entire idea is some sort of ideological complaint that has basis in reality.
The second amendment belongs to all of us. We need better background checks. Everyone can agree on that.
The Gun Lobby doesn't discuss this one. The Friedman v. City of Highland Park is about assault weapon bans. Considering the Court refused to hear it, that can be viewed as a precedent.
December 7, 2015
By NCC Staff
On Monday morning, (click here) the United States Supreme Court denied a potentially significant case on the ability of some Americans to own assault weapons.
The case of Friedman v. City of Highland Park has been listed in recent months for consideration by the nine Supreme Court Justices in private conference. It takes a minimum for four Justices to agree to hear an appeal before the full Court during its current term.
Without announcing the vote count in private conference today, the Supreme Court declined to accept the appeal from Dr. Arie Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association. They believed the suburban Illinois city violated their Second Amendment rights when it passed the ownership ban on various semi-automatic weapons, as well as a ban on ammunition clips that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition....
The primary argument of the Gun Lobby regarding 2nd Amendment Rights is that the government can never be trusted to uphold freedom and democracy; therefore, it is up to the citizens to defend their Constitution. That is an extremist political view and one not subscribed to by the courts.
Take this on. There is no reason to be concerned about confronting the dangers of our citizens. Move forward with weapon bans that threaten the country and it's citizens. This is crazy. Why would the Court allow enough fire power within the country to "so call defend the US Constitution?" If there is enough weaponry and ammunition with the country to defend the US Constitution with a bloody assault against the government; who is to say that same war machine can't overthrow the government when it is not contentious? The entire idea is some sort of ideological complaint that has basis in reality.
The second amendment belongs to all of us. We need better background checks. Everyone can agree on that.
