6/02/2009

7th Circuit says that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states

posted by John Lott at 3:34 PM

5 Comments:

Blogger Chris said...

Here's a more permanent link:

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=08-4241_002.pdf

6/02/2009 3:43 PM  
Blogger Braxton Hicks said...

So, with this reasoning, those living outside of the District of Columbia are subject to the Quartering of Soldiers (3rd Amendment)?

6/02/2009 3:57 PM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

I read the first section of the decision, and what do I see?

U.S. v Cruikshank and Presser v Illinois!

No court can invalidate the Constitution, nor it's amendments! This garbage must stop, as it is treason, and should be dealt with as such.

Armed Democrats overthrow an elected municipal government, and thanks to SCOTUS, they get away with it!?!

What in world ever happened to the Law? A great wrong occured with U.S. v Cruikshank, and the courts not only ignore such a wrong, they uphold it? What cowards they are!

Why cannot those whom are granted authority, do so in the fashion that they should have? They confuse authority with power, and abuse 'we the people' in doing so.

The pendulum does have a pattern to it, and it will swing the other way. I just hope I live long enough to see the balance restored.

6/02/2009 6:52 PM  
Blogger Andrew C said...

At least they were kind enough to slip in a reference to your book on page 8. I skimmed through it, but they're pretty much leaving it up to the Supreme Court to decide on the incorporation issue right?

6/02/2009 7:54 PM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

"So, with this reasoning, those living outside of the District of Columbia are subject to the Quartering of Soldiers (3rd Amendment)?" Braxton Hicks.

Fascinating view, Braxton. Within the context of 'Dual Sovereignty', States can quarter the National Guard within a private citizens home. All that is needed, is for one to rely on the Kelo decision, no?

Let us suppose for a moment that having an influx of National Guardsmen into private homes, constitutes a greater tax revenue for the city. Would this not pass muster under the 7th Circuits view of what applies to the States, and what does not?

Marbury v Madison (1803), nullifies all Law that is contrary to the Constitution, yet bad and unlawfull decisions are allowed to stand?

What gives?

6/03/2009 7:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home