paramedic70002

I've discussed before the notion that 2A citizens are discriminated against when there are protected classes of people under fed law that get more protection, even though there are NOT mentioned in the Constitution.

Last night I was watching "Cops" and got to thinking. Why is it that an accused criminal gets Constitutional protection (Miranda) when being arrested by a local LEO, but my federal Constitutional protections are limited and the state can impose infringements on my RKBA?

Simple answer is: because somebody cared enough to take a case to the SCOTUS, SCOTUS agreed to hear it, and SCOTUS agreed with Miranda.

So why can't we infer that one Amendment is just as weighty as another?

Now we're looking at Parker v. DC going to SCOTUS but DC is having second thoughts that they might lose and screw it up for the rest of the hoplophobes. That's a far cry from a decade ago when pro-gun factions were avoiding SCOTUS like the plague.

Damned infuriating that we can't get SCOTUS to do their job. I for one would like them to have their say so one way or the other on some very pointed questions in the law, and get it over with.

OK, I feel better now that I've gotten that off my chest. Until tomorrow.

__________________
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

Mtbiker

I hope Parker v. DC DOES make it to the SCOTUS. This is probably the best time for us pro 2A people for this to take place. There is the chance that it gets turned down but very unlikely. The fact that DC is so over the top restrictive mean that there is a great chance that it gets overturned. This should open up the floodgates to other cases. If a less restrictive case went first and was rules against, there would be a bad precident set.

Lets all hope that DC is arrogant enough to keep appealing this all the was to the SC.

__________________
-Biker