federal judges rule against the constitution, big shock it's NJ

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
New Jersey's law requiring residents show a “justifiable need” to get a permit to carry a handgun in public was upheld by a federal appeals court.

A mandate that residents demonstrate an “urgent necessity for self-protection” to get authorization to publicly carry a handgun doesn’t run afoul of U.S. constitutional protections of the right to bear firearms, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled Wednesday.

“The justifiable need standard is a longstanding regulation that enjoys presumptive constitutionality,” the panel wrote.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's what the founders meant by 'shall not be infringed'. and yes, that's both sarcasm and thinly veiled contempt laced with disgust

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ss..._to_carry_handgun_in_public_court_agrees.html
 
hey howey, i think this was written for you and zappa

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp

The anti-gun male

LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable--so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.

A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.

He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.
 
the scotus has already said gin laws are completely constitutional.

you have no point op

BTW its evil to want nutters to have gums
 
SmarterthanYou said:
hey howey, i think this was written for you and zappa

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp

The anti-gun male

LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable--so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.

A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.

He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.
Click to expand...


I'm not anti-gun. I'm "anti-gun in the hands of nutcases like STY"
 
evince said:
do we have gun laws?


does the scotus take up cases that would kill gun laws?
Click to expand...

They've taken up 2 in the past couple years and in both those guns laws lost. So name the case or.provide a statement or any evidence to support that which you claim. You're always asking for evidence and truth but damn if you ever provide either yourself.
 
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ctions-could-be-constitutional/1#.UgFz4inn85s


the scotus is not with you





As for the constitutionality of new legislation, Scalia noted that the United States had weapons laws at the time the Founding Fathers wrote and ratified the U.S. Constitution, including the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

He cited one law that banned "a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something."

Scalia also said:


"Obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be (looked at) ... it will have to be decided."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top