why are you making such a silly claim? You don't speak for the rest of us and I DO Care. His arguments are sound and logical
genocide seems a bit overly dramatic. the white settlers were just better at the violence game than the original conquerors of the New World.
No, its presumed constitutional. We've already established you miss key concepts and that's one of them.
Yes it is presumed constitutional and treated as constitutional and is in effect handled as constitutional in every way. Thanks
And treated as constitutional and enforced as constitutional and operates as constitutional in every way. Just want to make that clear
No, it is not a precedent before it is ruled on, this is basic constitutional law. Until then it is simply a presumptively constitutional statute.
You are wrong. Read heller. Scalia refers to other gun control laws as precedent that have never been ruled on
Quote please. https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/judicial-precedent/ court decision that is cited as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law in later cases. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/precedent Precedent means deferring to a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which forms the basis in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. The requirement that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Judicial+precedent ". Law A judicial decision that is binding on other equal or lower courts in the same jurisdiction as to itsconclusion on a point of law, and may also be persuasive to courts in other jurisdictions, in subsequent casesinvolving sufficiently similar facts."
You made the claim you back it up chief. Any response to those legal definitions dear? No? Gee I wonder why not?
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
