Yes, true -- it's offensive that 4 supremes are closet fascists. No question the El Neil "Why did it have to be guns?" litmus test is operative here.
Now everyone is going to bitch about how to "regulate" the right... never mind that a right is NOT supposed to be regulated. Hopefully someone on the Supremes will remember that rights are not to be pre-empted and not to be subject to prior restraint. Hopefully, this next step will wipe out a bunch of absurd permitting rules. Since self-defense is in the Heller decision and in the Cali constitution, it should mean that "self-defense" is a "good cause reason" for having a CCW since it is not clear to me that I can open-carry in Cali. ----- Original Message ----- From: Wraith To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Heller decision terrible At 06:15 PM 6/26/2008, you wrote: Robert D. Silvetz, M.D. wrote: > The Supremes would HAVE BEEN FORCED to rule on licensing if the attorney hadn't conceded the point. > He was just doing his job well. Goat Keep in mind that this was a VERY split decision. If not given that out, it could very easily have gone the other way. The Nine Riders of the Bench have a history of making narrow decisions in these types of situations. What should give one pause is how four people who many regard as "great legal minds" could, given the CLEAR history of the Founders/Framers intentions come to such a badly mistaken conclusion. ================================================================================ Tu Ne Cede Malis
