SCOTUS March 02,2010 - Anyone Going to DC?


PDA






golocx4
December 15, 2009, 08:14 PM
March 02 is the day. I read on CAL GUNs that several of them are going to DC to show support for McDonald and the Constitution.
Would be nice if several thousand showed up.
Anyone heard of anything being planned.

If you enjoyed reading about "SCOTUS March 02,2010 - Anyone Going to DC?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
testosterone
January 17, 2010, 08:25 PM
http://secondamendmentmarch.com/

Yo Mama
January 17, 2010, 09:44 PM
I really hate to say this, but I didn't want this case to go to court. I feel very bad for people living in fascist states, but my state is doing pretty good with gun laws (AZ). I wish that the issue would be fought state by state, instead of going to SCOTUS for everything.

If we win, we still stay were we are. If we lose, we lose everything.

Jeff23
January 18, 2010, 12:10 AM
Well, you'll perhaps pardon those of us living behind enemy lines if we'd like our basic civil rights incorporated against abusive local governments. Also, no man is an island. If McDonald fails and they can take my rights brother, they can come after yours some day when the political climate is different. That's what you have to lose. We really are all in this together--I'm actually happy I don't live in Massachusetts, but I would do everything I could to stand with them.

Yo Mama
January 18, 2010, 12:56 AM
Well, you'll perhaps pardon those of us living behind enemy lines if we'd like our basic civil rights incorporated against abusive local governments. Also, no man is an island. If McDonald fails and they can take my rights brother, they can come after yours some day when the political climate is different.

I have an old outdated phylosophy that states have the right here, not the feds to decide this. I don't believe that the feds have any right interfering in a states business. It's what we were founded on.

Thecrazedorganist
January 18, 2010, 02:32 AM
I have an old outdated phylosophy that states have the right here, not the feds to decide this. I don't believe that the feds have any right interfering in a states business. It's what we were founded on.
When a state is infringing upon the rights of citizens that are guaranteed by the Constitution, it most certainly is the Federal Government's business. Incorporation is a slam dunk, and there is no better time for this case to go before the court.

testosterone
January 18, 2010, 01:33 PM
I have an old outdated phylosophy that states have the right here, not the feds to decide this. I don't believe that the feds have any right interfering in a states business. It's what we were founded on.
I am not a scholar or attorney, but I think the point is that the bill of rights enumerates what, among other things, is to be equal in all states.

The first 8 are not "variable" or to be applied differently in different states.

Most feel this is going to be a slam dunk, no? because the case is going after more than selective incorporation of the 2nd amendment.

Geno
January 18, 2010, 03:11 PM
My kid-sister is being sworn-in by the US Sup Ct on March 07 to practice in front of the court. Unfortunately only one person can attend the ceremony. :( So, my father is going.

Oh well, all the same, we are about to add one more literal interpreter of US Constitutional law. Since she resides in Illinois, who knows...we may someday see her name floating around defending gun rights.

Sorry to get off topic, I am just so proud of her. She doesn't own any firearms, but she'll fully defends our right to have them. :D

Geno

geekWithA.45
January 18, 2010, 03:16 PM
I have an old outdated phylosophy that states have the right here, not the feds to decide this. I don't believe that the feds have any right interfering in a states business. It's what we were founded on.

We absolutely were NOT founded on the premise that any polity, be it federal, state or municipal gets to do whatever the heck they want.

We are absolutely NOT founded on the premise that 51% of our neighbors gets to decide what our fundamental personal rights are and aren't.

We rejected, quite violently, the premise that the states are so powerful that they got to specify that person A was the rightful property of person B, and to prevent that sort of thing from ever happening again, we passed at least three additional constitutional amendments to make it damned clear that there are no slaves, only citizens, and that every citizen is of the first class, having all the rights of every other, especially those enshrined in the bill of rights.

"outdated philosophy" is quite correct. Outdated, and obsolete.

I'm sorry if I'm being harsh here, but I will NOT let any argument for the validity of government powerful enough to strip people of their fundamental rights to go unchallenged.

theQman23
February 9, 2010, 01:20 AM
Though it is true that most conservatives, (myself included) would prefer that local people make local decisions, and programs like "federal stimulus packages" take a flying leap, it is also true that we are all Americans, under the same Constitution. The 2nd Amm, well actually all Amm's are to be upheld in ALL OF AMERICA, for ALL AMERICANS.

If you enjoyed reading about "SCOTUS March 02,2010 - Anyone Going to DC?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!