SCOTUS will not hear Drake v. Jerejian

[Brian]

Bummer.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/05/st...o/#more-209604

[Dave_L]

I heard that this morning. Big bummer. I think it's funny that you have to prove you have an immediate need to protect your life. Um, if my life becomes in danger, you bet your a$$ it's an immediate need. That's like saying, don't put life rafts on boats. Make the captain prove he had an immediate need and then we'll call the coast guard who will bring rafts.

[lowbeyond]

The problem is easy to solve. If u are on a jury in any gun case nullify it.

Perfectly legal.

However it seems that a lot of people are so invested in being a cough cough ahem Law Abiding Citizen and want to punish the ahem, criminals, and give the cops a pass who ahem, volunteer to enforce this bs, a pass (1); that this seems to be lost sing strategy.

(1) they don't have a choice you say? Bullshit. There are so many laws on the books that they choose to not enforce and/or they don't even know about, that that argument is a bit disingenuous.

Ymmv. Enjoy.

[BPTactical]

They are scared.
Either way they decide it is a shitstorm.

And I think deep down they still believe in states rights a degree.

[Rabid]

They are scared.
Either way they decide it is a shitstorm.

And I think deep down they still believe in states rights a degree.

I will agree that they are scared but when it comes to them believing in states rights to ignore this case is a pipe dream. States rights end with the 10A, being part of the Constitution, it reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". The 2A, also part of the Constitution, states "shall not be infringed." and being that it was the 2nd thought and not the 11th i am pretty sure our founding fathers wanted it to be protected and not delegated to the states or the people.