Reply to California's Opposition Brief in Silveira v. Lockyer 2nd Amendment Lawsuit

PDA






2dogs
October 27, 2003, 08:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reply to California's Opposition Brief in Silveira v. Lockyer Second Amendment Lawsuit

PDF file.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/CAreply.pdf
If you enjoyed reading about "Reply to California's Opposition Brief in Silveira v. Lockyer 2nd Amendment Lawsuit" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim March
October 28, 2003, 12:20 AM
Not bad. I'd have mentioned that Cruikshank was horrifically racist and a poor choice of cites by Lockyer's Lunatic Lawyers, but that's OK.
tyme
October 28, 2003, 11:43 AM
Also, if the reason state firearms bans are valid is that the 2nd isn't incorporated, why has Congress passed laws prohibiting firearms ownership? Oh, I forgot, their justification is the commerce clause. :rolleyes: And the court would almost certainly be 5-4 in opposition to an assault weapon sitting in someone's home being considered an impediment to interstate commerce.
If you enjoyed reading about "Reply to California's Opposition Brief in Silveira v. Lockyer 2nd Amendment Lawsuit" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!