Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (15844)	10/21/2002 6:10:04 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Correct, it was a unanimous decision of the Court. The remaining portion of the decision did deal with a sawed off shotgun and in that sense it was narrow, but it's interpretation of the 2nd was by no means narrow. It was a rather broad interpretation and used that interpretation to guide it in the rest of the opinion. No where will you find in the entire text that deals with interpreting the 2nd any limitation with respect to the type of firearm that was under consideration. The Court ignored – and so did not endorse – the government's other claims, i.e., that:.... From a Constitutional Law basis, the only thing that you can legimately claim is that the Court "ignored" those claims. It neither endorsed the claims nor did it rule against them. The Court has a habit of doing that, dodging whenever it can, the "ruling" that we would like to know the answer to. But the absence of a decision is not a decision in the negative. jttmab jttmab