@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
izzythepush wrote:
That would indicate an education. Btw, for all Romeo's bellyaching about our gun laws, as a convicted felon he would not be allowed a firearm. Do your laws allow convicted felons to possess firearms? (Just asking, I honestly don't know.)
They do not.
Yes, for now thay don t; men have been incarcerated
for being felons in possession of guns,
but I am skeptical that this will be the prevailing law, in the final analysis.
I see some Constitutional infirmities.
Will the USSC hold that the requirement of: "equal protection of the laws"
does
NOT apply to something so trivial and
un-important
as
the right to DEFEND YOUR LIFE ???
Qua the central 2A right to defend your life in the streets,
together with the "equal protection of the laws" requirement,
will the USSC rule that: "
de minimis non curat lex"????
The USSC has
ALREADY held that something as
urgently IMPERATIVE
as Rosa Parks getting a better seat on a bus for a few moments
requires "equal protection of the laws",
but will the Court say that whether she (
un-armed)
is torn apart in the street by packs of dogs after descending from the bus
she is
NOT entitled to "equal protection"?????????
Suppose that she'd been convicted of selling felony wt marijuana,
or of tax fraud? Must she THEN (
un-armed) feed herself to the dogs??
That woud be a non-viable humiliation for the USSC.
David
