Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Are you a gun controller ?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vvvvvvv" data-source="post: 1193408" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p>Case law is still not law. Case law is just a set of legal precedents, right or wrong, that can be affirmed or negated at any time.</p><p></p><p>McDonald v. Chicago was not well decided. Only Justice Clarence Thomas chose the right path for incorporation, the Privileges and Immunities Clause.</p><p></p><p>By the plurality using the Due Process Clause, the Second Amendment is now subject to interpretation based solely on the political views of the sitting Justices at the time that a case is heard. Substantive due process requires that the Justices determine whether or not the right in question is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.</p><p></p><p>Overall, McDonald v. Chicago is actually a loss for Second Amendment rights in that the Court affirmed that the Second Amendment is <strong>not</strong> written in stone. It doesn't take much effort to find that there is no consensus on precedents in Due Process rulings from the Supreme Court.</p><p></p><p>What this basically amounted to is an invitation to start advertising job openings at law firms specifically for Second Amendment litigation.</p><p></p><p>By the way, a judge would not be committing career suicide to rule against any precedent set by McDonald v. Chicago. It's a common theme throughout Due Process cases.</p><p></p><p>It's too bad that no one had the balls to challenge Slaughter-House, even after saying previously that Slaughter-House is very flawed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 1193408, member: 5151"] Case law is still not law. Case law is just a set of legal precedents, right or wrong, that can be affirmed or negated at any time. McDonald v. Chicago was not well decided. Only Justice Clarence Thomas chose the right path for incorporation, the Privileges and Immunities Clause. By the plurality using the Due Process Clause, the Second Amendment is now subject to interpretation based solely on the political views of the sitting Justices at the time that a case is heard. Substantive due process requires that the Justices determine whether or not the right in question is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty. Overall, McDonald v. Chicago is actually a loss for Second Amendment rights in that the Court affirmed that the Second Amendment is [B]not[/B] written in stone. It doesn't take much effort to find that there is no consensus on precedents in Due Process rulings from the Supreme Court. What this basically amounted to is an invitation to start advertising job openings at law firms specifically for Second Amendment litigation. By the way, a judge would not be committing career suicide to rule against any precedent set by McDonald v. Chicago. It's a common theme throughout Due Process cases. It's too bad that no one had the balls to challenge Slaughter-House, even after saying previously that Slaughter-House is very flawed. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Are you a gun controller ?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom