Props to the 4th Circuit and SC

[USN_Hokie]

I’m happy the localities are allowed to govern themselves as they best see fit.

... which is why we allow localities to torture suspects into confession, suppress free speech, and establish Presbyterianism as the official state religion.

Don't forget slavery!

[ip_law-hokie]

... which is why we allow localities to torture suspects into confession, suppress free speech, and establish Presbyterianism as the official state religion.[/quote]

In this instance. I’m glad that localities are allowed to govern themselves as they see fit in this instance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

In other words, you want localities to do things you like, whether they are forced to do so by the national government or choose to do so themselves.[/quote]

Not at all. The predisposition should be to allow localities to do as they want. Of course there are limits. The inability to own semi-automatic weapons should not be one of those limits. I'm glad its not.[/quote]Because?[/quote]

Because I value the ability of a locality to ban semi-automatic weapons over the right of citizen who chooses to live in that locality to own a semi-automatic weapon.[/quote]Regardless of what the constitution says. Got it[/quote]

Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.

[cwtcr hokie]

... which is why we allow localities to torture suspects into confession, suppress free speech, and establish Presbyterianism as the official state religion.

In this instance. I’m glad that localities are allowed to govern themselves as they see fit in this instance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

In other words, you want localities to do things you like, whether they are forced to do so by the national government or choose to do so themselves.[/quote]

Not at all. The predisposition should be to allow localities to do as they want. Of course there are limits. The inability to own semi-automatic weapons should not be one of those limits. I'm glad its not.[/quote]Because?[/quote]

Because I value the ability of a locality to ban semi-automatic weapons over the right of citizen who chooses to live in that locality to own a semi-automatic weapon.[/quote]Regardless of what the constitution says. Got it[/quote]

Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.[/quote]

except the judge involved is completely ignoring the second amendment to the nations constitution.....that little fact

[awesome guy]

Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.

Mob rule, got it

[USN_Hokie]

Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.

Mob rule, got it

IP, like all liberals, thinks rights come from (and thus, can be taken away by) government.

[awesome guy]

Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.

Mob rule, got it

IP, like all liberals, thinks rights come from (and thus, can be taken away by) government.

Same people can't understand that no means no with the ladies either. They're agitators and aggressors.

[ip_law-hokie]

... which is why we allow localities to torture suspects into confession, suppress free speech, and establish Presbyterianism as the official state religion.

In this instance. I’m glad that localities are allowed to govern themselves as they see fit in this instance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In other words, you want localities to do things you like, whether they are forced to do so by the national government or choose to do so themselves.[/quote]

Not at all. The predisposition should be to allow localities to do as they want. Of course there are limits. The inability to own semi-automatic weapons should not be one of those limits. I'm glad its not.[/quote]Because?[/quote]

Because I value the ability of a locality to ban semi-automatic weapons over the right of citizen who chooses to live in that locality to own a semi-automatic weapon.[/quote]Regardless of what the constitution says. Got it[/quote]

Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.[/quote]

except the judge involved is completely ignoring the second amendment to the nations constitution.....that little fact[/quote]

You find your constitutional knowledge to exceed that of the 4th Circuit’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ip_law-hokie]

Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.

Mob rule, got it

IP, like all liberals, thinks rights come from (and thus, can be taken away by) government.

The 4th Circuit said that there were no constitutional rights at issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ip_law-hokie]

Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.

Mob rule, got it

The 4th circuit is a mob? The Supremes too?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USN_Hokie]

Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.

Mob rule, got it

IP, like all liberals, thinks rights come from (and thus, can be taken away by) government.

The 4th Circuit said that there were no constitutional rights at issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're trolling of course, but their ruling is in conflict with almost 100yrs of Supreme Court precedent.

[awesome guy]

Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.

Mob rule, got it

IP, like all liberals, thinks rights come from (and thus, can be taken away by) government.

The 4th Circuit said that there were no constitutional rights at issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a laughable position. Just admit that you're for ignoring the constitution as there's no logical path to that decision.

[awesome guy]

... which is why we allow localities to torture suspects into confession, suppress free speech, and establish Presbyterianism as the official state religion.

In this instance. I’m glad that localities are allowed to govern themselves as they see fit in this instance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In other words, you want localities to do things you like, whether they are forced to do so by the national government or choose to do so themselves.

Not at all. The predisposition should be to allow localities to do as they want. Of course there are limits. The inability to own semi-automatic weapons should not be one of those limits. I'm glad its not.[/quote]Because?[/quote]

Because I value the ability of a locality to ban semi-automatic weapons over the right of citizen who chooses to live in that locality to own a semi-automatic weapon.[/quote]Regardless of what the constitution says. Got it[/quote]

Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.[/quote]

except the judge involved is completely ignoring the second amendment to the nations constitution.....that little fact[/quote]

You find your constitutional knowledge to exceed that of the 4th Circuit’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]It is, just as he can reply with quotes better too

[ip_law-hokie]

Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.

Mob rule, got it

IP, like all liberals, thinks rights come from (and thus, can be taken away by) government.

The 4th Circuit said that there were no constitutional rights at issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're trolling of course, but their ruling is in conflict with almost 100yrs of Supreme Court precedent.

Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ip_law-hokie]

... which is why we allow localities to torture suspects into confession, suppress free speech, and establish Presbyterianism as the official state religion.

In this instance. I’m glad that localities are allowed to govern themselves as they see fit in this instance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In other words, you want localities to do things you like, whether they are forced to do so by the national government or choose to do so themselves.

Not at all. The predisposition should be to allow localities to do as they want. Of course there are limits. The inability to own semi-automatic weapons should not be one of those limits. I'm glad its not.

Because?[/quote]

Because I value the ability of a locality to ban semi-automatic weapons over the right of citizen who chooses to live in that locality to own a semi-automatic weapon.[/quote]Regardless of what the constitution says. Got it[/quote]

Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.[/quote]

except the judge involved is completely ignoring the second amendment to the nations constitution.....that little fact[/quote]

You find your constitutional knowledge to exceed that of the 4th Circuit’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]It is, just as he can reply with quotes better too[/quote]

My way works fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[awesome guy]

... which is why we allow localities to torture suspects into confession, suppress free speech, and establish Presbyterianism as the official state religion.

In this instance. I’m glad that localities are allowed to govern themselves as they see fit in this instance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In other words, you want localities to do things you like, whether they are forced to do so by the national government or choose to do so themselves.

Not at all. The predisposition should be to allow localities to do as they want. Of course there are limits. The inability to own semi-automatic weapons should not be one of those limits. I'm glad its not.

Because?

Because I value the ability of a locality to ban semi-automatic weapons over the right of citizen who chooses to live in that locality to own a semi-automatic weapon.[/quote]Regardless of what the constitution says. Got it[/quote]

Not at all. That's why they had a trial, AG. Please try to keep up.[/quote]

except the judge involved is completely ignoring the second amendment to the nations constitution.....that little fact[/quote]

You find your constitutional knowledge to exceed that of the 4th Circuit’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]It is, just as he can reply with quotes better too[/quote]

My way works fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]I'd say my respect exceeds theirs.

[USN_Hokie]

You're trolling of course, but their ruling is in conflict with almost 100yrs of Supreme Court precedent.

Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IP studied morning constitutional law.

[ip_law-hokie]

You're trolling of course, but their ruling is in conflict with almost 100yrs of Supreme Court precedent.

Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IP studied morning constitutional law.

I’ve got you down with cwtcr and AG as having a constitutional acumen superior to the 4th Circuit’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USN_Hokie]

You're trolling of course, but their ruling is in conflict with almost 100yrs of Supreme Court precedent.

Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IP studied morning constitutional law.

I’ve got you down with cwtcr and AG as having a constitutional acumen superior to the 4th Circuit’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.

[ip_law-hokie]

You're trolling of course, but their ruling is in conflict with almost 100yrs of Supreme Court precedent.

Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IP studied morning constitutional law.

I’ve got you down with cwtcr and AG as having a constitutional acumen superior to the 4th Circuit’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.

Is that the same Court that denied cert and upheld the 4th circuits correct ruling?

You must be a little peeved. Have you called your realtor? The 4th Cir is no place for a Cap’n.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USN_Hokie]

I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.

Is that the same Court that denied cert and upheld the 4th circuits correct ruling?

You must be a little peeved. Have you called your realtor? The 4th Cir is no place for a Cap’n.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing was "upheld". They refused to hear the case - nothing more. You should have learned that in law school.

It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. Both sides are afraid because they don't know how Kennedy will vote. Your efforts to squash individual liberties might not be as successful next year when he's retired.

[ip_law-hokie]

I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.

Is that the same Court that denied cert and upheld the 4th circuits correct ruling?

You must be a little peeved. Have you called your realtor? The 4th Cir is no place for a Cap’n.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing was "upheld". They refused to hear the case - nothing more. You should have learned that in law school.

It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. Both sides are afraid because they don't know how Kennedy will vote. Your efforts to squash individual liberties might not be as successful next year when he's retired.

Pissy pissy. It's the law of the land for Maryland, Cap'n. Better luck next time.

[USN_Hokie]

I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.

Is that the same Court that denied cert and upheld the 4th circuits correct ruling?

You must be a little peeved. Have you called your realtor? The 4th Cir is no place for a Cap’n.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing was "upheld". They refused to hear the case - nothing more. You should have learned that in law school.

It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. Both sides are afraid because they don't know how Kennedy will vote. Your efforts to squash individual liberties might not be as successful next year when he's retired.

Pissy pissy. It's the law of the land for Maryland, Cap'n. Better luck next time.

Patent troll is better at trolling than law. Better luck next time.

[ip_law-hokie]

I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.

Is that the same Court that denied cert and upheld the 4th circuits correct ruling?

You must be a little peeved. Have you called your realtor? The 4th Cir is no place for a Cap’n.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing was "upheld". They refused to hear the case - nothing more. You should have learned that in law school.

It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. Both sides are afraid because they don't know how Kennedy will vote. Your efforts to squash individual liberties might not be as successful next year when he's retired.

Pissy pissy. It's the law of the land for Maryland, Cap'n. Better luck next time.

Patent troll is better at trolling than law. Better luck next time.

Do you deny that the decision is precedential authority in the 4th circuit?

[awesome guy]

I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.

Is that the same Court that denied cert and upheld the 4th circuits correct ruling?

You must be a little peeved. Have you called your realtor? The 4th Cir is no place for a Cap’n.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing was "upheld". They refused to hear the case - nothing more. You should have learned that in law school.

It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. Both sides are afraid because they don't know how Kennedy will vote. Your efforts to squash individual liberties might not be as successful next year when he's retired.

Pissy pissy. It's the law of the land for Maryland, Cap'n. Better luck next time.

Patent troll is better at trolling than law. Better luck next time.

Do you deny that the decision is precedential authority in the 4th circuit?

It's not inline with other rulings, not that you care about being honest.

[USN_Hokie]

I've got you down with Diggety as having a constitutional acumen superior to the Supreme Court.

Is that the same Court that denied cert and upheld the 4th circuits correct ruling?

You must be a little peeved. Have you called your realtor? The 4th Cir is no place for a Cap’n.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing was "upheld". They refused to hear the case - nothing more. You should have learned that in law school.

It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. Both sides are afraid because they don't know how Kennedy will vote. Your efforts to squash individual liberties might not be as successful next year when he's retired.

Pissy pissy. It's the law of the land for Maryland, Cap'n. Better luck next time.

Patent troll is better at trolling than law. Better luck next time.

Do you deny that the decision is precedential authority in the 4th circuit?

That was the case when the 4CA ruled. Denying cert had no bearing, but I think you know that.