Gun Show Loophole exposed <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

Why don’t you actually read the majority opinion.

 

Do I know how con law works? Yeah I've got a law license in Texas and Federal Court (Southern District of Texas).
Where did you get yours from?

See the part in Heller where it says they DO NOT ADDRESS THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT?

That's a big clue that none of what they have to say about licensing is part of the holding of the case. Anything they have to say on it is therefore DICTA. Do you know what Dicta is? Can you tell the class? You know, since you're all learned and erudite and such? Eh Copper?

 

That’s because like the 2a, you can’t read the entire statement and be correct . Why insist on taking everything out of context by reading one phrase at a time then use that for an argument. You’d flunk freshman English if you did that at any level. I hope you’re not claiming to be a legal expert. I’m not, but I understand how to read entire statements and paragraphs. To be honest, post the entire paragraph that the quote appears in, then debate. Just posting phrases is not a mature effort in reading comprehension.

 

If it is not possible to actually answer the question as it is presented, simply state such, rather than maintaining an excessively high level of optimism in believing that it can simply be done.

 

You’re totally wrong. You take one phrase out of context. You just failed freshman English. “Heller concedes that the DC licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, COMMA, * the continuation, .” Does not address the licensing requirement, “ has only to do with the administration of the regulation. Heller funds the regulation PERMISSIBLE. That’s the primary thought in this statement and everything else are subordinate clauses. You don’t make the clauses primary thoughts in a statement That’s how you read an entire statement. ALL the phrases must be coordinated into one idea.

“Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. “

 

It’s rediculous to think they could handle the numbers with a computer. Do you want Canadian laws ? I do. Cause that’s all I hat matters.

 

Simply because there would be little reason for the plaintiff Heller to take issue with licensing and registration requirements, when one is not legally permitted to own the very item that needs to be registered and licensed.

 

If the nation of Canada could not make their firearms registry work, despite having the same computers as the united states, and a drastically smaller number of firearms could keep track of, how could the united states do any better in such an endeavor? Is the nation of Canada essentially too stupid to figure out how to actually work computers while the united states is not?

 

You’re wrong. Canada still registers restricted weapons which includes hand guns and semi autos. They decided not to restrict hunting weapons, non semi and shot guns. They are easy to obtain in Canada. It has nothing to do with capability. It has to do with criminality. Read more.

 

You have a law degree and you can’t read complete sentences ?
You just read phrases and think they are the primary meaning in a sentence and don’t know how to recognize subordinate clauses ? That’s funny . Turn your degree back in. Ha ha....unbelievable.

 

The registration of handguns works fantastically in canada

 

Lol so you dont know what dicta is.. o man I havent been this amused since ronstar showed us the same ****

The court does not address the licensing requirement, it's not part of the decision. You can tell by how it explicitly states that.

 

Licensing and registration already exists in this country

 

Which doesnt mean it was ruled constitutional in Heller Vegas. Try to keep up.

 

It is already presumed constitutional.

You do know that....dont you? Lol

 

Funny there's case law on licensing rights back, and theres also the plain text of the 2nd amendment, but importantly: it wasnt ruled on in Heller. That has been the topic of discussion with this dude all ****ing day.
Again: try to keep up.

 

Yep. Presumed constitutional.

You are smart not to deny it.

Case closed. Lol

 

.... an expert in the field standing on his knowledge of how the field differs from a layman's expectation? Yes thank you.


The majority opinion in Heller, as already quoted for you more than once, explicitly does not include a ruling on licensing because it was not a Case or Controversy before the Supreme Court.
It was not addressed. The ruling is about a storage requirement and its infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. It's not about the NFA or assault weapons bans, or the Hughes amendment or carrying in public or gun free school zones or any other thing. It's about a storage requirement infringing in the individual right to KEEP and BEAR arms. Period.


Try defining DICTA

 

Presumed constitutional. Lol

 

No dear you're having the same confusion he is:

As in Heller, We do not reach that argument because it is not the topic before Us here.

 

Yeah. But registration and licensing is presumed constitutional.


Lol

 

Why is it proper to just pick phrases out of sentences and pretend they represent the main meaning of sentence. You did this twice in this post. This red neck who professes to be an expert on little, has a problem understanding what your point is.
Dicta ? Why don’t you just look up the meaning instead of depending upon me to tell you what it is. It’s clear that Heller says the local registration and licensing procedure is permissible. It says so. Got a problem with English ?

 

Oooo with the rules violations. Naughty naughty.

It says they don't rule on it but you feel free to be wrong fella

 

How could I be wrong. The Heller decision actually REQUIRES that Heller’s guns be registered and he is licensed in order to be lawful with the decision. . This is held....

Read it. Just don’t pretend it says something else.

 

Have you read the part where they state they dont make any ruling on that? O wait... you have because it's been quoted.

The constitutionality of licensing was not before the court it's not in the holding. Live with it.