I completely disagree with your reading of Heller. If your opinion is there are NO constitutional restrictions on the second amendment then I know of NO legal scholar that agrees with you. Even Scalia (RIP) said there were constitutional restrictions on the second amendment. As far as mandatory training any law passed in this regard would be considered PRESUMPTIVELY constitutional until a court ruled otherwise. And I find no current ruling on this matter
It gets more expansive when the Justices by 5-4 favor the left. It sticks to law when the opposite happens.
So when the court EXPANDED the rights of corporations to contribute to politicians in Citizens United....was that the left?
Read what I said... I did not address the topic of restictions at all. I narrowly commented on your interpretation of section 2, they were not making a ruling with that section, again they were saying don't read into their decision as implying their ruling covered any prohibition on way or the other; it only covered thecspecifics of the Heller case. In fact, as they indicated, it did not address the issue of licensing because that was not part of the Heller vs DC case scope. Again, the scope of their decision was very narrow...
Which completely sidetracks away from the original point that a law regarding mandatory training would be considered constitutional until some court says its not. And there is no current precedent that I can see that they would call on to make that case.
until the government got involved that was always the case. and unions were able to do it long before CU was passed
the prohibition on the federal government as to firearms is more substantial than the limitation on the federal government in the first
its called an analogy. since you want to license one right, he asked you why you don't fight to license other rights?
I see no evidence for this. In fact I see no enumerated right that has a higher priority than any other
More guns, less gun violence! https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/guns4.jpg - - - Updated - - - It is not helpful to register guns either. Criminals will never register. Licensing of firearms is an infringement. The other things are not constitutionally codified.
congress shall make no law does not contain any limitation on the executive branch shall not be infringed means anything or anyone in the federal government.
Can you show me where the supreme court has demonstrated that in a legal opinion? Or is it just your own legal opinion - - - Updated - - - Well that is clearly YOUR opinion. Unless you can show me where the supreme court has ever said that in an opinion
And what would you like to hear court support for? It is a fact that any law NOT struck down by the supreme court is considered constitutional until it is. Do you deny this? Therefore a law mandating gun training would be declared constitutional until a court declares it not.....which it has not done yet
Unassailable fact: Heller struck every law put before the court. To argue that Heller upheld a law, any law, is a position of abject ignorance or outright dishonesty. /story
another incredibly ignorant misunderstanding of the entire foundation upon which the constitution is based
It'll prevent people from being abusive and making less grammatical and spelling errors. It'll cut down on nonsense arguments since everybody will have to take speech and debate classes in order be involved in forums and social media.
I see no one can argue against the fact that there are constitutional restrictions on the second amendment and that a law mandating gun training would be constitutional until a court rules otherwise which has not happened yet and may never happen
I look at the law that was applied as wrong all along. That is the ruling by the USSC. Had it stood, it contracted rights.
