|
The most basic question here is "Is this case going to get us to the question of the ex post facto aspect of Lautenberg?" Does this case give standing to challenge that or is this guy just in CYA mode?
Everyone who has a modicum of knowledge on ex post facto has to know that Lautenberg flies in the face of the Constitution on that aspect alone.
Lautenberg has been a POS from its inception as it is the first law in American history which denies a codified constitutional right for a misdemeanor crime and is, on its face, an (so far) unchallenged ex post facto law. It is one of the primary examples of a law created and passed to satisfy political correctness doctrine.
It is unfortunate that the law has to harm someone before they can have "standing" to challenge it. <rhetorical questions>What about the rest of us whose Constitution has been bastardized on the altar of political correctness? Shouldn't we have "standing" when the Supreme Law of the Land, under which we all live, is being destroyed?</rhetorical questions>
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.
"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare
"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
|