"HeyBub" <heybub@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:KcGdnXNfjp-YvLrVnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Herb Martin wrote:
>>
>> Putting up with it is different than rationalizing and justifying it.
>>
>> We put up with ALL "CHL requirements" when none of them are
>> Constitutional.
>
> Based on black-letter law and not some ephemeral "inherent rights"
> business,
> all state and local laws regarding firearms are constitutional,
including
> absolute prohibition.
I am talking about the simple fact that infringing ANY essential right
without evidence is unconstitutional.
No gun control law can pass strict strutiny nor anything approaching
that standard.
> That may change (slim chance, but possible) in as little as three weeks.
Whether SCOTUS rules this way or not, it remains unconstitutional,
just as denying the right to an attorney was unconstitutional long
before the Court got around to saying so.
