DirksterG30
Member
Dirkster, my post was not intended to flame, or repudiate another. It is simply my thought that I am not a court of competent jurisdiction, so it matters not what I think is reasonable, or unreasonable. If the court has ruled on it, it seems to me the constitutional process alluded to, has been duely served. For me to reject that decision, in deference to my personal opinion, strikes me as rather counter-constitutional.
Hook686,
I for one am not going to defer to how a particular court rules as to whether something is constitutional or not. After all, the Constitution was not written in a mysterious language that only the legal elites can understand. Most anyone can understand quite well what the Constitution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights, means.
The courts are known to twist the plain meaning of the Constitution to suit their purposes. What would you say if the courts ruled that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to political speech? Would you defer to their judgment then?
All of that is somewhat tangential to our discussion, though. We are talking about the BATFE; I may be mistaken, but I do not believe the consitutionality of the BATFE has ever been addressed in a court. What I believe is crystal-clear is that the Constitution specifically proscribes the limits of the federal government's power, and the BATFE falls outside of those limits, and is therefore unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment says our rights shall not be infringed, and the BATFE definitely infringes on our 2nd Amendment rights.