Posted: 1/17/2013 12:34:18 PM EDT
| "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." |
|
Quoted:
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Hell. Yes. 
But I guess you'd have to prove the law was unconstitutional...in a NY court...good luck. 
|
|
"In 2007, a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the city's gun ban was unconstitutional. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote in the majority opinion that "the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns."
The ruling was affirmed the following year by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion said that citizens were guaranteed a right to keep firearms that were in common use in their homes for self-defense, but that the government could pass reasonable regulations concerning firearms and ammunition." An AR-15 by all means is in "common use." Now what should be considered "reasonable" regulations concerning firearms and ammo? Do we have any way to fight registration? |
|
Quoted:
"In 2007, a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the city's gun ban was unconstitutional. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote in the majority opinion that "the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns." The ruling was affirmed the following year by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion said that citizens were guaranteed a right to keep firearms that were in common use in their homes for self-defense, but that the government could pass reasonable regulations concerning firearms and ammunition." An AR-15 by all means is in "common use." Now what should be considered "reasonable" regulations concerning firearms and ammo? Do we have any way to fight registration? Does anyone with a legal background think that the argument could be made that throughout history registration has always led to confiscation and thus should be deemed unconstitutional? Also, forcing people to register to enjoy what should be a basic civil right should be considered infringment, no? |