Yet that quote or its contents didn't make it into the Constitution or the Bill of Rights', and it remains one man's opinion. The Militia Acts passed by Congress in 1792 didn't use those terms, either.
Given the prior makeup of the Court neither side felt confident/had the numbers to ensure a win. That's going to change.
not any time soon. The same court that voted 5 to 4 for Heller voted 7 to 2 to NOT hear any AWB cases. That 7 to 2 makeup still exists today.
Sure, but I also read the law on the Congressional website, which takes precedence over, well, everything. "§311 . Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=militia&f=treesort&fq=true&num=5&hl=true
The Truth about the Second Amendment, is that we should have no security problems in our free States.
The ninth circuit court of appeals has ruled otherwise. And no legal doctrine exists in the united states holding to the contrary. Simply put, the united state supreme court has never stated that it is illegal for a private individual to possess a firearm outside of the home.
then what is being stated by yourself? That the united state supreme court ruled the way in which it did in Caetano specifically because it knew no matter what was said, it would never be legal precedent?
Yes I am; people who are grossly overweight and poor hygiene as well intention as they currently may be; in some cases due to overweight issues, they can collapse in the heat of the battle or exercise; people with poor hygiene can spread illnesses on to those who may not be infected thus creating a major health issue and affect the battle readiness of the milita. You don't win battles or wars with a rag-tag army of do gooders; instead a well trained/disciplined group of citizens is a major part of winning.
What percentage of the 60 million men in the militia are you going to force on a diet and exercise regimen?
About 58 million. How about you? will you force those unfit to serve go on a diet and exercise regimen?
thats why we need more Trump judges to bitch slap the dishonest turkeys who ignore McDonald v Chicago. states don't have rights but powers.
"if it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events...If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit". Does that sound like something that will pass SCOTUS muster? Feels? Shew v Malloy had this to say: "The court concludes that the firearms and magazines at issue are "in common use" within the meaning of Heller and, presumably, used for lawful purposes. " None of the courts looked at Miller, which quite evidently protects "assault weapons". What "assault weapons" were banned, by the way?
