Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisdrache
You are equating taking out of context with reaching a different conclusion.
Also you just admitted to taking my post out of context.
|
There is no "different conclusion" with regard to Scalia's ruling.
You were wrong, just admit it.
Quote:
|
What Scalia said and is part of what you quoted is that the second amendment does not give you unlimited right to carry any weapon for any purpose in whatever manner and that limitation over carrying dangerous weapons is supported.
|
Scalia used US vs Miller to define what constitutes "dangerous" and it is not an AR-15 or other paramilitary weapon.
It is weapons such as a sawed-off shotgun like the double-barrel hunting gun in the US vs Miller case. That is a dangerous weapon.
Quote:
|
Turn that as you may it doesn't change that the Supreme Court has concluded that these challenges do not warrant enough substance to overturn the bans and limitations currently in place.
|
There is no "turn" there is only the fact that a refusal to hear is not rejection of the premise of the case but rather whatever the court decides is the reason. Including trying to free up the docket for other cases deemed more pressing.
You are reading into the rejection more than is there.
Last December they refused to hear a case on sexual discrimination based on someone being Transgender. That in no way means they ruled against the person, it simply means they chose not to hear this case on this issue. They may change their mind in the future, and that is my point. Just because they ignore some cases on an issue does not mean they won't revisit it again in a different case later.
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-...imination-case