“SCOTUS is toothless. It’s proven that it’s unwilling to assert itself over the lower courts and their judicial insurrection against SCOTUS rulings.”

How do you explain the recent ‘Bruen’ SCotUS decision, you know, the one that said “a two-step approach on constitutionality was one step too many” was ‘toothless’?

Whatever you’re smoking, can I have some from your bag? 🙂

It’s becoming apparent that Roberts, ACB, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh aren’t interested in defending our 2A rights.

“Having read the Dred Scott ruling, why would you consider it “bad”.”

I apologize if I wasn’t clear, I meant the ruling *correcting* the bad 1857 ruling authored by Taney, where blacks weren’t considered citizens…

Having read the Dred Scott ruling, why would you consider it “bad”. At its principal, the question was whether property has rights, not the morality of whether humans should be property. [Or even other animals – see the NY case attesting that Happy the Elephant should have rights should have the same rights as humans].

The Dred Scott ruling was even used in Bruen by Justice Thomas. The Chief Justice in the Dred Scott ruling had a paragraph which basically stated that if Mr. Scott was not property, then he would be afforded all rights secured in the Bill of Rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. This is a powerful statement showing that 2A has always been seen as an individual right.

Please! And I’m happy to see I can comment while mobile, now! 🙂

Hello guys!

Dan Z,

Will there be a future edit function for comments (please)?

Take the ‘Dred Scott’ ruling as an example. A bad initial ruling, and rightfully overturned down the road. We can’t let that happen to ‘Heller’ thru ‘Bruen’ and let them claim the moral high ground…