Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: 1st Amendment protects speech involving 2nd Amendment [View all]Token Republican
(242 posts)5. Reading is fundamental
It doesn't say anywhere what the man said. The police said the man said something they disagreed with. The nice judge said the police have to show what the man said that was so offense. The police said trust us, and the nice judge said nope, you have to us what he said.
In any event, Plaintiffs' demand for monetary damages should be denied.
Lee v. Grant, Appomattox Courthouse, 1865.
Lee v. Grant, Appomattox Courthouse, 1865.
Reading is fundamental.
Your anti gun nuttery aside, you do realize this is a first amendment case. Google First Amendment retaliation claim
Or do you believe the first amendment was also repealed by the Civil War?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I read quickly through that opinion, and couldn't see where the gun nut was quoted directly.
Loudly
Mar 2014
#2
The ruling didn't strike down the clear and present danger provision in the FOID law.
Loudly
Mar 2014
#6
The leading case is also useful to argue potential harm from mere possession of guns and ammunition.
Loudly
Mar 2014
#28
They apparently skipped due process on grounds of exigent threat to public safety.
Loudly
Mar 2014
#19
200+ years of the 2A trumps your Dred Scott and Plessy to Brown v. Board of Ed.
uncommonlink
Mar 2014
#33
Its Constitutional purpose, now moot, was armed rebellion against the government.
Loudly
Mar 2014
#32
"Settled to the contrary for all time at Appomattox Courthouse Virginia in 1865."
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2014
#37
Your reasoning seems circular to me. Or at best an excercise in perpetuating a faulty premise.
Loudly
Mar 2014
#38
"You want to argue the 2A in terms of its being successfully or unsuccessfully exercised"
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2014
#39