This "old" law is akin to saying that you can exercise your first amendment rights, but only in your home. And travelling from your home to any other place with anything that has writing or other communication is strictly forbidden. So they changed the law and said, effectively, you can travel with words, but only if it is a direct and continuous trip, and we'll define those terms as narrowly as we can while still saying that we changed the law.
At what point do we acknowledge that the second amendment is just as important as the first amendment and deserves equal protection?
On a separate note, didn't the courts already tell our President that making a slight change to the law was not enough to make legal challenges moot? I thought this happened with the travel ban.
Search found 2 matches
Search found 2 matches • Page 1 of 1
- Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:04 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: SCOTUS: to rule on gun rights
- Replies: 23
- Views: 2158
That's Ginsberg. She stopped being a real justice a long time ago, if she ever was one. She is an activist who happens to wear the robe of a SC justice.mojo84 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:03 pmLooks like at least one of the justices may think it is a moot point.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/02/supr ... -argument/
Trump will replace her with an actual justice next term.