|
mnottertail -> RE: More unconstitutional antigun bullshit (12/15/2010 10:24:23 AM)
|
It is not at all limp, the restrictions from gun ownership are well dissed by the SCOTUS rulings, the zoning of gun ranges is not.
The you cant make this shit up is pointing out your bullshit, like your outright lie dealing with profiling being legal.
its as if a lunatic shithouse lawyer hereabouts wrote up the argument
you need reading comprehension, so if you parse the sentence, put in front of your eyes again, you will notice that indeed the as if would indicate that I said what I said, not limp at all and the hereabouts I will let you pencil out for yourself, but I am not hopeful that you will understand what nearly everyone else knows I meant on this board.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
H and M dealt with restrictions on gun ownership in the city, which is an infringement on keeping and bearing.........this suit is about whether they can restrict gun ranges.
The Second Amendment guarantees a right to use and operate gun ranges…
shooting at a range is also in and of itself a traditional lawful use of firearms secured by that amendment,”
nothing about gun ranges in that second amendment, and define traditional, here I can shoot without a range, and folks many places have open use. now, traditionally, the scotus have left restrictions surrounding how and where and when you can keep and bear arms to the states, the meaning of the constitution for federal issues is seen as narrow.
I think it is a horseshit argument based on past caselaw, and unless hes got a fuck of alot more in his brief than that firstliner, he's toast, but then that is the sort of gunslinging tough talking mindless empty rhetoric that gets drooling neocon fuckheads dicks hard before they do the bathroom airport suck offs.
It is only words, and hasn't anything beyond an impudent rah rah value.
|
|
|
|
