Lynnhaven Shooting Range
"Bama Brian" <eddyclay@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:5ZidnfCZffnb3rXVnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Herb Martin wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Yeah, but your view of what's constitutional, or mine, doesn't count.
>>
>> As for the attorney business, so far as I know, no case in the almost
200
>> years prior to the court's ruling was reversed due to the absence of
>> counsel.
>
> Utter bull****. Even the lack of effective counsel, or unprepared
counsel
> has caused the reversal of cases.
>
> Do the google yourself.
And slavery would still be unconstitution even if SCOTUS disagreed.
There are some fundamental rights that are NOT fine points of law
but basic to the Constitution -- on these every one knows that the
rights exist and SCOTUS does not get to "rule them out of existence"
without ruling out the Constitution itself and thus removing authority
from the government.
Without the Constitution, all power reverts to the people.
|
