Can you guess what all this talk, talk, talk about gun control is doing?

[Savannahmann]

84. Seriously, you honestly think that?

Then these news stories are all wrong aren't they?

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-02-23/justice/scotus.terror.secrecy_1_mohamed-kamel-bellahouel-high-court-appeal?_s=PM:LAW

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday gave the government the power to pursue certain terrorism cases in near total secrecy, declining to hear an appeal by an Algerian immigrant detained after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

So by declining to hear the appeal, the Government took that to mean that they could pursue terrorism cases in total secrecy. Now why would they think that. Oh perhaps the fact that the SC decided to ignore it gave them the power?

http://www.mainjustice.com/2012/01/17/justices-decline-to-hear-appeal-of-ex-arizona-congressman-renzi/

The Justices declined to hear the appeal of a Congressman, and allowed the Justice Department to go after him on corruption charges.

There are tens of thousands of news stories that say the same thing.

So lets see what the US Courts say on the matter of appeal.

http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/HowCourtsWork/TheAppealsProcess.aspx

A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari," which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to grant review. The Court typically will agree to hear a case only when it involves an unusually important legal principle, or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently.

So according to that description. The city of Morton Grove banning firearms did not create a important legal principle. But how could that be? Weren't they violating the individual right to keep and bear arms in 1983? What about all those years those prospective gun owners were denied their individual rights between Morton Grove and Heller?

Every argument you make is false, and every assertion is proven wrong. Prior to Heller, there was no individual right to keep and bear arms in legal history. There simply wasn't. Every time guns were regulated, the challenge was shot down. From Machine guns, to right to carry. Every single one was shot down. Until we got to Heller. Then the NRA talking point had taken hold, and it was now an individual right. I'm astounded that you don't realize it. I'm at a loss as to how to further educate you on the truth of the history.

Tell you what, find a case where the Government was told they could not restrict gun ownership prior to Heller. There isn't one. There isn't one single case in legal history. US V. Miller, perfectly acceptable to restrict gun ownership and it goes on and on and on through history. Until Heller. Then suddenly we had an individual right to keep and bear arms. From out of nowhere.

Now the SC is able to do that. They found that Separate but Equal was both Constitutional, and then later Unconstutional. Both had equally vague answers in history. Yet, we at least admit that there is nothing specifically authorizing Separate but Equal or disallowing it. We just decided one was right, and then later, that it was wrong. Yet gun owners for some reason, refuse to believe that previous to Heller they had no right as an individual laid down in case law to own a gun. Look it up. You'll find much dissapointment in the search for case law to support your position.