|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guns
by Snuffy. 06/02/24 07:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iso
by AustinC. 05/21/24 05:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
121 registered members (AuGrayghost, Backwards cowboy, dirtwrk, GomerPyle, hamma, RCHRR, Young20, Hoytdad10, DMC, mathews prostaff, canine933, BCLC, BRP549, bamapanic, somedude, doublefistful, CeeHawk37, TideWJO, CrappieMan, courseup, Skillet, odocoileus, hallb, UARandy3, Colt1917, Atoler, KSRabbit, goodman_hunter, FreeStateHunter, brett.smith, Turkey_neck, SwampHunter, beano1, kyles, fillmore, burbank, Skullworks, bfoote, MAG, JRF, jaredhunts, YellaLineHunter, kodiak06, Shaneomac2, CatfishJunkie, Peach, Holmes, 7mmMag, 7PTSPREAD, Brad Watson, BentBarrel, RebFormanUDA, AU7MM08, Bruno, BurningBright, outdoorguy88, Whiskey9, ts1979flh, DGAMBLER, deadeye48, BamaGuitarDude, Floorman1, NorthFork, TDog93, PourIron12, StateLine, rockhunter, ducky25, Cahabariverrat, treemydog, ImThere, CNC, woodduck, sanderson, Tree Dweller, bama7x57, AKB, HBWALKER14, rickyh_2, coldtrail, clayk, Bcleck90, Lil_Fella, bama_earl, BearBranch, gastoka, Dixiepatriot, brianr, Bigem1958, Team_Stuckem, BCD, mauvilla, WEMOhunter, bamamed1, Rainbowstew, akbejeepin, Ray_Coon, Whild_Bill, Auburn_03, snakebit, jawbone, donia, Ragu, TwoRs, crenshawco, Tracker, sloughfoot, D.C., 380jeff, cgardner, scrubbuck, 10 invisible),
466
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Amendment 3
[Re: johnnyreb]
#1129114
10/29/14 06:04 AM
10/29/14 06:04 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,999
Holly Pond, AL
NightHunter
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,999
Holly Pond, AL
|
I'm concerned about the way it is worded. Strictly read, it says that any infringement on the right to bear arms will be subject to strict judicial scrutiny. I understand that is a legal term with specific implications. And in the current environment that may be fine......but what happens should the court go liberal at some point in the future? Would this be the thing that allows the court to be used to infringe upon our right?
I like "shall not be infringed" better.
I still don't know what to do with this one Problem is scrutiny can come from the bench and who wants that? We do not need strict scrutiny from a liberal judge trying to make a name for themselves. We have the second amendment and it works just fine.
|
|
|
|
