labgrade
Member In Memoriam
A courts' "interpretation" (I do hate that word in this context) would be a clear reading of the constitution based on what it just says & on historical documentation on what the founders meant.
Seems pretty clear to me that none of that is happening any longer.
"Courts" are appointed (for life likely) by those latest in power to adjudicate for "legislative reasons" - allow a "judicial interpretation" of what they wished they could have passed through the legislature, but couldn't.
Makes the whole system out o' whack.
"Constitutional" used to mean that it passed constitutional muster. These days, it merely means that The 9 refused to view the case, that someone with "good hair" has decided such to be true.
Case in point is the 9th Circuit. Can we perhaps agree that these nut-jobs have very much so bastardized what we used to think that we had as rights?
Thought as much.
These "activists" have really put a crimp on y'all's flavor of life based on what they believe, & nothing to do with what the constitution says.
Other Circuit Courts have ruled consistantly contrary to their rulings & the 9th is the most overturned ever.
Why? Because even The 9 think that the 9th is full of crazed folk.
So, have they been correct in their rulings & assumptions? Obvioiusly not (through the desenting rulings from higher courts), BUT, in the meantime, you are under "constitutional law" - until decided otherwise.
Or not?
We all know the answer, just yakkin' it up to make conversation.
Far as the original post:
""There are limitations on the Second Amendment, certainly they are for the public safety," Steuerwald said. "It's analogous to the First Amendment that you can't run into a crowded theater and yell fire." "
& again. Of course you can yell "Fire!," if there is one. The analogy falls short in that yelling fire when there is nore is potentially harmfull, yelling fire when there is, is potentionally life-saving. Mere possession of said firearm implies no threat whatsoever.
& isn't that what the second used to mean?
Our side of the slippery slope seems to make mention that we cannot be trusted with the possession of a firearm - but just in certain instances.
& in some, I would agree. I too live in that grey shade, but we are our worst enemy when we assume somehow that we, or perhaps just some, are to be more trusted than others - sometimes.
As an aside. At 16, I was "trusted" to carry a 20 gauge shotgun w/ammo on a domestic commercial flight. At 45, I was "trusted" to carry a pocket knife on an international commercial flight .... now I will never again fly commercial because they don't trust me to file my own fingernails.
So much for the slippery slope & trust.
That the slope exists, is not in dispute. That we have furthered it is as well.
Do be careful what you wish for.
Seems pretty clear to me that none of that is happening any longer.
"Courts" are appointed (for life likely) by those latest in power to adjudicate for "legislative reasons" - allow a "judicial interpretation" of what they wished they could have passed through the legislature, but couldn't.
Makes the whole system out o' whack.
"Constitutional" used to mean that it passed constitutional muster. These days, it merely means that The 9 refused to view the case, that someone with "good hair" has decided such to be true.
Case in point is the 9th Circuit. Can we perhaps agree that these nut-jobs have very much so bastardized what we used to think that we had as rights?
Thought as much.
These "activists" have really put a crimp on y'all's flavor of life based on what they believe, & nothing to do with what the constitution says.
Other Circuit Courts have ruled consistantly contrary to their rulings & the 9th is the most overturned ever.
Why? Because even The 9 think that the 9th is full of crazed folk.
So, have they been correct in their rulings & assumptions? Obvioiusly not (through the desenting rulings from higher courts), BUT, in the meantime, you are under "constitutional law" - until decided otherwise.
Or not?
We all know the answer, just yakkin' it up to make conversation.
Far as the original post:
""There are limitations on the Second Amendment, certainly they are for the public safety," Steuerwald said. "It's analogous to the First Amendment that you can't run into a crowded theater and yell fire." "
& again. Of course you can yell "Fire!," if there is one. The analogy falls short in that yelling fire when there is nore is potentially harmfull, yelling fire when there is, is potentionally life-saving. Mere possession of said firearm implies no threat whatsoever.
& isn't that what the second used to mean?
Our side of the slippery slope seems to make mention that we cannot be trusted with the possession of a firearm - but just in certain instances.
& in some, I would agree. I too live in that grey shade, but we are our worst enemy when we assume somehow that we, or perhaps just some, are to be more trusted than others - sometimes.
As an aside. At 16, I was "trusted" to carry a 20 gauge shotgun w/ammo on a domestic commercial flight. At 45, I was "trusted" to carry a pocket knife on an international commercial flight .... now I will never again fly commercial because they don't trust me to file my own fingernails.
So much for the slippery slope & trust.
That the slope exists, is not in dispute. That we have furthered it is as well.
Do be careful what you wish for.
