No, it would be fair if they actually reviewed one of four cases that has been offered. You still can't offer any reason why a firearm that is in common use for lawful purposes and has a reasonable relationship to the efficiency and preservation of a well-regulated militia, that millions use for lawful purposes each year, that is not a weapon of war, that is not most useful to a military, that on average is used to kill fewer people each year than any other class of firearms and is used on average each year to kill fewer people than knives, blunt instruments bare hands and water should be banned, other than such a ban makes people "feel safer".
refusing to hear 4 cases that are pretty much identical tells us something. continue to deny reality at your leisure.
I believe that states can have gun laws. I don't believe that "assault weapons" are Constitutional under Heller, Miller, Caetano and McDonald. Why do you think that they are?
So you're just a parrot? If you're incapable of defending a position without appeal to authority, perhaps a debate forum isn't the place for you.
I understand and respect the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court the final say on the legality of all laws.
I respect it, and I also respect the case that overturned it. Its called respecting the Constitution.
These lower courts are ignoring the united states constitution by ruling in a manner that ignores and violates the precedent that has been set by Heller, McDonald, and Caetano.
i respect all SCOTUS decisions, because I respect the authority given to them by our Constitution. but I very strongly disagree with many of them.
Your blind submission is telling. When the courts rubberstamp governmental overreach to protect authoritarianism in open defiance of Constitutional intent, it should be called out for what it is, not given any modicum of "respect".
"Far-right trolls are using harassment-enabling platforms like 8chan and Gab to encourage threats against a federal judge for recently upholding a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons. The trolls published what appears to be Young’s home address and phone numbers and claimed that Young had signed his 'death certificate' by ruling to uphold existing gun laws." https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2...who-upheld-assault-weapons-regulations/219904 Right from the gun apologist playbook. I remember a man in Arizona experiencing similar harassment after he turned in his guns to the police after the mass shooting in Las Vegas. It seems some people value guns above everything else (including free speech).
Demonstrate the actual proof, the evidence, that the ones who are issuing the threats of harm are being committed by those who align with the right, conservative mentality. In case it has been missed by yourself, members of the left have been filing false reports of hate crimes for years, only for it to be revealed that they committed the supposed crime and pretended to be a victim of such. http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/ These are just a few examples of the trend.
PLEASE spare me from the self-righteousness of the gun banners. You bemoan "threats" (which most likely don't exist) against those you support while giving tacit approval when the personal information of those on the other side is published and THEY start getting legitimate and documentable threats. Astonishing hypocrisy!
I follow the Constitution, and it says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter and interpreter of the law.
...and when the Supreme Court issues rulings that are blatantly in conflict with the Constitution?? Learn to think for yourself.
