• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Peruta denied Cert?

TheGoverness said:
Look who it is. Did you expect any different?
Click to expand...

Neh, I thought Jet articulated the point rather well...mostly because I suspect much the same. SCOTUS, by a 7-2 call, decided to leave state law on carrying firearms alone.
 
jet57 said:
So you have no credible counter point or argument then; it;s all personal for you....

Got it
Click to expand...

I don't have to make a more credible argument than to say that no evidence exists to prove why the SCOTUS passed on this case, or even enough to be "obvious."

If you'd like to provide facts, and not biased opinion, then I'll politely read it. Beyond that...
 
calamity said:
So much for gun rights guys banking on SCOTUS to back them. I guess, it's 7-2 for states rights and believe the right to carry is not protected by the 2nd.

I have to say, this is a surprise.
Click to expand...

Don't read things into this that aren't there. This was not an affirmative support for state's rights, or a negative ruling on the right to bear arms. It was just a decision to not make a decision now using this particular case. The future will tell what happens long term or permanently.

I agree with you that it is very surprising.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Don't read things into this that aren't there. This was not an affirmative support for state's rights, or a negative ruling on the right to bear arms. It was just a decision to not make a decision now using this particular case. The future will tell what happens long term or permanently.

I agree with you that it is very surprising.
Click to expand...

states that have constitutional provisions that mirror the 2nd Amendment have case law history where bans on CCW were not found to violate the state provision. Now I don't agree with that but the precedent exists, I believe the USSC will use the idiotic 4th circuit complete disregard of HELLER to rule against the MD ban on "military style weapons"
 
TurtleDude said:
states that have constitutional provisions that mirror the 2nd Amendment have case law history where bans on CCW were not found to violate the state provision. Now I don't agree with that but the precedent exists, I believe the USSC will use the idiotic 4th circuit complete disregard of HELLER to rule against the MD ban on "military style weapons"
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting. The 2nd Circuit Court in Shew v Malloy ruled that "assault weapons" were indeed protected by Miller and Heller but still upheld that ban.

I just want strict scrutiny. And some actually statisticians to file amicus briefs.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I don't have to make a more credible argument than to say that no evidence exists to prove why the SCOTUS passed on this case, or even enough to be "obvious."

If you'd like to provide facts, and not biased opinion, then I'll politely read it. Beyond that...
Click to expand...

Back him into a corner he can't get out of and you may get lucky enough to be put on his ignore list....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom