Are We Asleep At The Wheel?

[MikeBjerum]

Main Stream Media is trying to hide this, but it is popping up here and there.  Why aren't we discussing the Court Ruling that carry is not protected by the Constitution 

[crusader rabbit]

That was a ruling that came down from the Ninth Circus Court.  Those idjits are in California and are known for having their heads firmly up their bung holes.  Their rulings are regularly overturned by the Supremes but serve as a strong cautionary note regarding the need for 5 Constitutionalists on the SC.  If the Hildebeast is elected, kiss the Second goodbye.

I have so little hope for this once fine nation.

Crusader Rabbit

[MikeBjerum]

In the little I have read and heard on this I have a thought:

They ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect "concealed carry."  They acknowledged the right to bear, but it is ok to say no to concealed.  Did they just crack the door open to "open carry" being a protected right?

That would serve them right!

[Solus]

Problem with this ruling is that it will almost certainly be heard before the SCOTUS.

And therein lies the risk...

It will not be heard until sometime in the next administration...when what ever administration that is will have had the opportunity to appoint probably at least 2 new judges.

Should we have a Liberal next administration, it is possible Heller will be overturned.

[Timothy]

Regardless who becomes the president, we must at all costs keep the House and Senate out of the lefties hands.  Even Hilldabitch must have Senate approval of her appointments!

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

Problem with this ruling is that it will almost certainly be heard before the SCOTUS.

And therein lies the risk...

It will not be heard until sometime in the next administration...when what ever administration that is will have had the opportunity to appoint probably at least 2 new judges.

Should we have a Liberal next administration, it is possible Heller will be overturned.

I was listening to a Christian station for a while on Friday, and one of the guests was a lawyer who has argued in the Supreme Court.  His issue with this is that when the Court made this decision they looked at law when the Second Amendment was written.  The problem is they looked at English law! 

He says this will go before the Supreme Court, but not until other Circuits weigh in.  That is their pattern.  He believes that this ruling will be overturned, but our Rights are being restricted in the meantime.

He also brought up that for all the screaming about obstruction and handcuffing the Court by waiting until after next January, the Justices have stated they are doing just fine, and there is no need to rush.  This was not a split statement, but from all.

[tombogan03884]

Even for the Heller decision they looked back at English law since it is the basis for our own laws and heavily influenced the founders.
Until the 20th century no free Englishman was prohibited from owning arms. The problem was that it was not specifically stated in nearly idiot proof terms like our 2 A.