Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
at the same time, dk, he was quite clear that heller was the new framework and that he had no intention in his capacity as attorney general in overturning that. at the core of the exchange was the separation between holder's personal views, where they come from and how they've changed, as over against his views on the legal environment that'd circumscribe his relation to gun control legislation.
strange though how different things look as you're watching as over against how they read on the transcript.
i'm curious about why you make a separation between state/local controls, which can be quite draconian, as over against federal controls. i would think you'd consider them equivalent.
|
The heller decision is not the landmark ruling that people think it was. The USSC left it so that 'reasonable restrictions' could pass constitutionality, without ever defining reasonable. So, we will go round and round again with hundreds of cases until 'reasonable' is defined more clearly.
as to your last statement....why would I worry about an AG of the united states having any say over state/local controls? he has no authority or jurisdiction to make a state gun law.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
|