On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:44:08 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:26:25 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Oh..Constitutional Interpretations!! Odd...it was considered
Constitutional for DC to ban guns and of course the Sullivan Law was
considered Constitutional, along with all the Morton Grove Bans..until
it wasnt.

Says who? Not the Supreme Court. Now you have a S.C. decision. Then,
we didn't.


And you are saying bad law is the law we should follow? So if the
Conservatives win big..and vote to simply murder all the
Leftwingers...you are good to go, right?

That would be unconstitutional. g

Not if it was stated by someone to be Constitutional. VBG

But I'll bet dreaming about it helps you get to sleep at night.

I wake up screaming


Dont worry,.it will never happen. The Great Cull will happen first.

See above.

I hope you live through it. But..being a Lefty..I rather suspect you
wont.




Isnt that part of the Shall not be "broken/violated/trangressed" you
blithered out in another post

Not according to the lengthy list of citations contained in Heller,
nor in the Heller decision itself.

You keep spewing about Heller..which was a partial correction for 100
yrs of Unconstitutional law. Next you are going to revert back to
Scalia. You really do have the keyhole view dont you?

That's the law as it stands today. And it is by far the most accurate
recounting of 2nd Amendment history in this country's history.

Except for the other 35 rulings

Pffhhht.


http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm


VBG

You just hate that dont you?

No, we've already discussed it. Plimpton pointed out the same thing to
you: it's a dog's breakfast of dicta and dissenting opinions. No
binding precedent.

It's useful history. It's up to the courts, though, if they'll pay any
attention to it. All they have to pay attention to now is Heller.


Laugh laugh laugh!!

Nitrous?

--
Ed Huntress