Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Who are the Militia? [View all]jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)excop: .. the view of this amicus brief did not prevail in Emerson,.. Heller.
Of course it didn't, the nra prevailed via a rightwing supreme court which ruled against historical precedent. You continue to be a genius for the obvious thinking you're a full graduate rather than a student (how are classes going btw? you a frosh, soph, jr or sr now?). Fact remains the very link you cited for scalia was used by militia side in emerson, showing ambiguity therein.
.. how the law works. It is an adversarial system, which means there are two sides, each presenting its arguments. Then the justices (or judges in the lower courts) make a decision, which becomes law.
Gee, and here I thought it was the legislatures which made the laws & the courts generally ruled on the constitutionality or legality thereof. Reread chapter 1, basic law. And those judges & courts, they're always 100% correct aren't they? OJ innocent as a babe, dred scott proper, jim crow judges & juries tossing people in jail on skincolor, the 5-4 heller decision just what the rightwing manipulated past 30yrs!
You keep arguing for a point that has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.
Can't stop laughing; ruled once in appelate in emerson, twice in scotus, & on those 3 you use the word 'repeatedly'? hahaha, what duplicity! prior to emerson, it had never been ruled for the individual rkba (in higher courts).
excop: .. arguing a losing side after the case or cases have been decided definitely show a lack of understanding in the law.
You should notify marcia clark, vince bugliosi (his post verdict book) & chris darden et al, their lack of understanding in the law. You adhere to some really weird science there, student.
hans posts regarding rights granted by texas rkba, not 2ndA: .. that the people shall be familiar with the use of arms and capable from their habits of life, of becoming efficient militiamen. If the general right to carry and to use them exist; if they may at pleasure be borne and used in the fields, and in the woods, on the highways and byeways, at home and abroad, the whole declared purpose of the provision is fulfilled. The right to keep and to bear arms so that the state may be secured in the existence of a well regulated militia, is fully attained. The people have, or may have the arms the public exigencies require, and being unrestricted in the bearing and using of them, except under special and peculiar circumstances, there is no infringement of the constitutional guarantee. The right to bear arms in order that the state may, when its exigencies demand, have at call a body of men, having arms at their command, belonging to themselves and habituated to the use of them, is in no fair sense a guarantee that the owners of these arms may bear them at concerts, and prayer-meetings, and elections.. The constitution is to be construed as a whole. One part of it is not to be understood in such a sense as will militate against another. It is as well the duty of the general assembly to pass law..
>>> It is now well settled that the amendments to the constitution of the {US}, are all restrictions, not upon the states, but upon the {US}. therefore, if this act be unconstitutional it must be because it is in conflict with our state constitution