11-12-2020, 08:13 PM
(11-12-2020, 06:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: None of this has anything to do with your claim that middle-of-the-road moderate judges would not agree with your position.
It does if you're able to exercise logic. It's rather simple, but seeing as you are having trouble I will assist you. The SCOTUS is not addressing these cases, even though it well known that four of the nine justices want to hear them (I'll let you figure out which four). They want to take on a further 2A case as they (correctly IMO) believe that Heller is not only being ignored but it was not of sufficient scope. Thus far they have failed to do so, because by most, if not all, accounts they are not sure of the fifth vote needed (*cough* Roberts) to do so. The addition of a further justice with strong 2A sensibilities, Barrett, will enable them to hear such cases with a reasonable assurance of achieving the goal of ensuring the second amendment is no longer treated as a secondary (no pun intended) right.
Quote:BTW I don't disagree with the decision in Heller, but it was clearly judicial activism since it basically deleted the language in the 2nd Amendment about a well armed militia.
No, it clearly was not, that's your opinion. Since the general consensus, affirmed by the SCOTUS itself in the late 1800's, is that all men of fighting age are "the militia", then they did not ignore it at all. As I've said before, we in a more egalitarian age, so we can include all women in that as well.
Quote:Heller will not bar the registration and licensing laws that I support.
I didn't bring up your pet issues in this regard, although I disagree with them for reasons already stated. Licensing could absolutely be seen in the same way as a poll tax, a charge to exercise a constitutional right. Regardless, that's beyond the scope of your initial question.
