Guns: how much longer will it take ....

One cockamamie decision like Heller is hardly stare decisis.

The truth of the matter is that the Dems do not wish to ban or seize guns. It does, however, wish to ban Saturday-night specials, assault weapons in the hands of the public, and cop-killer bullets.

Quote:

As you know, Verdugo is dicta.

U repeat that, like a mantra,
without ever proving your allegation.

I know that in the VERDUGO decision,
the USSC found it necessary to render the definition of "the people"
i.e., to decide which people are protected by the Bill of Rights.
Accordingly, it earned its pay by DOING SO.
It found that the same people were protected by the
First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments
and also the same people who can vote to elect Congress
every 2 years. Because this definition was necessary to decide the case:
it has precedential value; stare decisis must attach.
That is the reason that the USSC cited to it with approval in HELLER,
thereby adopting its reasoning as the law of the land

Stare decisis had already attached before HELLER, back in 1990.

Quote:

The opinion merely mentioned the 2A,
and did not begin to get into the issue of how it is to be interpreted (as Heller did).

It explicitly interpreted WHO "the people" are that are protected
by the 2nd Amendment (i.e., the same people who are protected by the 1st Amendment;
this is in perfect harmony with the CRUICKSHANK case,
which found that 1st and 2nd Amendment rights
are OLDER than the US Constitution, which found them in being,
when it was enacted).





David

The truth of the matter is that the Dems do not wish to ban or seize guns.

It does, however, wish to ban Saturday-night specials,

assault weapons in the hands of the public,

and cop-killer bullets.

Quote:

at a time when the government is collecting a massive dna registry of US citizens and residents (with no consent having ever been given) it should also be collecting a registry of all guns to include samples of shot rounds. The owners of the guns should pay for the testing, and if no on steps up to pay (claim the weapon) then it should be melted down.

U are describing government overthrowing the Constitution
and taking over the country; a naked usurpation of power, u crave.

Quote:

I dont agree with the collection of the DNA registry,
as it is an invasion of privacy and also an unconstitutional seizing of evidence, but let's be consistent with our bad acts.

Your post is too vague to be intelligible; maybe just mindlessly emoting ??

U fail to refer to any jurisdictional predicate:
just assuming that government has that authority.





David

The truth of the matter is that the Dems do not wish to ban or seize guns.

at a time when the government is collecting a massive dna registry of US citizens and residents (with no consent having ever been given) it should also be collecting a registry of all guns to include samples of shot rounds. The owners of the guns should pay for the testing, and if no on steps up to pay (claim the weapon) then it should be melted down.

It is really tiresome to see over and over again claims that the Dems want to seize guns

(other than Saturday-night specials and assualt weapons). You gun nuts can't cite a single example of this being true.