New Supreme Court cases could affect State 2a laws

[Bohemian]

Tuesday March 2nd, 2010:

What Could McDonald v. Chicago Mean for the Second Amendment? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Supreme Court McDonald vs. Chicago oral argument transcripts released

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...ts/08-1521.pdf

http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/McDonaldvChicagooral.pdf

NRA-ILA :: McDonald v Chicago

Stay tuned for my assessment of how Alan Gura conceded what he deems acceptable Second Amendment Infringements this time...

Update...

As anticipated Alan Gura got it wrong AGAIN...

90% of Alan Gura's argument was good, the other 10% is what will haunt us for decades to come...

Here is two huge gaff's Attorney Alan Gura made in his oral arguments in my view...

1. JUSTICE KENNEDY: I understood the Chief Justice's question -- maybe I misunderstood it, but my understanding of the question that's important is this. Under incorporation by reference, the States are bound by the rights in all -- with all of the refinements and sophistication with which we interpret them for the Federal Government. It's the same. You don't just apply the core of the right. You apply all of the right as it is elaborated by the cases.
Is -- is that same consequence -- does that same consequence follow if we adopt the privileges and
immunities interpretation that you are urging upon us?
MR. GURA: Yes, Your Honor.

2. JUSTICE BREYER: You are saying they can have -- no matter what, that the city just can't have guns even if they are saving hundreds of lives, they cannot ban them?
MR. GURA: The city cannot ban guns that are within the common use as protected by the right to arms.

Response to #1.: There is that fricking "refinements" & "interpret" b.s. again that appears NOWHERE in the Constitution, Second Amendment or any of the founding documents...
Just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" does Alan Gura & Justice Breyer not understand? you simply cannot, must not read anymore into the Second Amendment... leave it & us the ******* alone...
There is nothing more clear in the Founding Documents then "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and it means the same thing today as it did over 200 years ago...
Don't jack with the inherent, pre-existing, fundamental right to protect ones life by any means necessary, using equal or greater force than may be brought against one; by all enemies foreign or domestic, including but not limited to the tyranny of our own government... As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently delineated in the Declaration of Independence...

Response to #2.: There is that fricking "COMMON USE" b.s. again which appears NOWHERE in the Constitution, Second Amendment or any of the founding documents...
That is used to infringe upon any type of weapon they have legislated and or taxed into UNCOMMON USE...
What happens in 50 or 100 years when we are using laser weapons or whatever high-tech weaponry the future brings us, and they become all the rage...
Do the weapons we now enjoy because they are in common use; become bannable?
Under his argument they do...

How long are WE THE PEOPLE going to allow these jokeuses to continue make ***** up?

WTFU SHEEPLE!

Take back the Republic!

[nogods]

From The Declaration of Independence...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness ….
The Declaration of Independence

Alan Gura should try reading or re-reading it once in while, so he can get his due diligence straight...

I think Stewart Rhodes is at the top of the list of those I'd like to see in front of SCOTUS defending the Second Amendment; as his views are clearly consistent with those of the founding fathers including but not limited to Thomas Jefferson & George Mason.

Oath Keepers Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic

Oath Keepers

Dirt Rhodes Scholar: THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

We should be asking Stewart and or Guns Owners of America to talk to Alan Gura about his flawed view of the Second Amendment and his inept, compromising support of it and the Status Quo.

Gun Owners of America

The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. The union was formed based on the Constitution.

[6shootercarry]

The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. The union was formed based on the Constitution.

It's not the law of the land. It's the document that defined the land. Without it there would be no union to form, nor Constitution perhaps ... It began there. We would still be a British colony if not for that document, and the bloodshed that ensued because of it.

Peace...

[JJFlash]

The process is no different than other historical research in which ancillary documents are examined in relation to one another. Much like reading Bible verses in context, the wholistic view that this method provides, clarifies the meaning of the "story" being told. It appears quite evident to me, from all the historical evidence, the Framers knew exactly what they meant and intended when the 2A was ratified: "shall not be infringed".

What is there really to argue about?