longeyes
member
Dangerous precedent? I think you've just summed up the Bill of Rights. Indeed so. And dangerous to the usual suspects. Sic semper tyrannis.
@#$%#@%#@~!Judge Reggie B. Walton assumed his position as a United States District Judge for the District of Columbia on October 29, 2001, after being nominated to the position by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate
The USSC will not hear the case. They have already decided not to settle this issue.
I heard an interesting comment last week. I heard the USSC refused to hear the Silva case because they knew there wasn't enough support to overturn it. And it was agreed by the USSC to not take the case because they felt the final decision was going to cause severe unrest within the Pro-2A sector of the US.
I think the USSC was trying to tell us we are wrong in their (5:4) opinion.
“Judge Reggie B. Walton assumed his position … after being nominated to the position by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate.…â€
It was brought up during a conversation with a few lawyer friends of mine. 2 of them have friends in the DC area, and did some research when they heard the USSC decided not to hear the Silva case.
Damn. I owe someone pushups and sit-ups with that comment.
Its Silviera vs Lockyer case... or Silviera case... or the Gary Gorski case...
Judge Reggie B. Walton assumed his position as a United States District Judge for the District of Columbia on October 29, 2001, after being nominated to the position by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He also ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it was intended to protect state citizens, and the district is not a state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bartholomew Roberts then asked:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I guess the other Amendments don't apply to DC as well then?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're pretty much right. We have no voting rights or representation in
Congress. That whole "no taxation without representation" cry only
worked for the 50 states.
As a side note - it turns out this Judge Walton is a Bush II appointee who
also worked under Bush I. Nice huh?
You're pretty much right. We have no voting rights or representation in Congress. That whole "no taxation without representation" cry only worked for the 50 states.
Publicola,In the oral arguments when asked by the judge if the government could restrict the right to bear arms Halbrook replied, "YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS. WE ARE NOT HERE WANTING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS. WE'RE NOT HERE ASKING TO CARRY THEM, OTHER THAN IN THE HOME."