100% agreed with the criticism of Justice Thomas's reasoning. Why can't it just come back to the fundamentals of the circumstances under which the bill of rights was written? You just finished fighting the torries (which would be analogous to the national guard), who first disarmed civilians, and you're wanting to ensure the people cannot be disarmed. This is consistent with the language of the state's own bills of rights that preceded the federal Constitution.
If corrupt judges would just honor their oaths of office and the plain language of the supreme Law of the Land, none of those cases would be necessary. Just sayin'. !!!
I would just point out that the "surety" and "going armed to the terror of the public" laws did NOT disarm the accused. They only had to put up a bond. Big difference!!!
![What Is the Future of Administrative Law? [2024 NLC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9kkJ8xnOTSc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Showcase Panel IV: Race in the Law After SFFA [2024 NLC]](/img/1.gif)
Your sound levels are broken. Need to remaster with volume 10x louder
Sound issues? I'm not having issues on other channels.
In live chat they acknowledged the sound problem and tinkered with it but never got it to sound really good.
100% agreed with the criticism of Justice Thomas's reasoning. Why can't it just come back to the fundamentals of the circumstances under which the bill of rights was written? You just finished fighting the torries (which would be analogous to the national guard), who first disarmed civilians, and you're wanting to ensure the people cannot be disarmed. This is consistent with the language of the state's own bills of rights that preceded the federal Constitution.
If corrupt judges would just honor their oaths of office and the plain language of the supreme Law of the Land, none of those cases would be necessary. Just sayin'. !!!
I would just point out that the "surety" and "going armed to the terror of the public" laws did NOT disarm the accused. They only had to put up a bond. Big difference!!!
Nor was it a ban on POSSESSION of any weapons, just prohibition of a manner of CARRYING certain weapons. Another Big difference.
There’s no audio! I can’t hear any arguments.
So, Prof. Merkel doesn't believe the other BoRs Amendments do not apply to individuals either? YK, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, etc.
And his false claim that Scalia said the prefatory clause has no meaning was ridiuculous.