DCcarry_6ptshs

“…Because constitutional rights ‘are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them,’ [District of Columbia v. Heller] the Second Amendment does not ‘at its core’ encompass a right to carry an operable firearm in public. Rather, the ‘core’ of the Second Amendment right is the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home, not the right to carry handguns in public. The Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to possess non-dangerous weapons for self-defense in the home.” – District of Columbia’s pleading for a further stay in its Palmer v. District of Columbia ruling [at washingtonpost.com]

 

Recommended For You

115 Responses to Quote of the Day: Non-Dangerous Edition

  1. So, why is it then that Internet and TV news is considered protected free speech, given neither medium existed at the time of the Constitution’s drafting?

    • Ironically they are arguing that what the second amendment protects is your right to keep ‘non-dangerous’ weapons’ like pepper spray or tasers in your home. Of course non-dangerous weapons didn’t exist until a couple of centuries after the constitution was written, but…

      • They didn’t have sticks and stones back then?!

        Oh, wait, I guess those are dangerous…..

        BAN THE STICKS AND STONES!!! FOR THE CHILDUMBS!!!

        • People are dangerous.

          I know that you’re trying to draw attention to the clearly idiotic “non-dangerous weapons” phrase, but the fundamental disagreement we have with the anti gun crowd is that guns aren’t the problem. People are the problem.

        • Just some kid right out of law school doing what he was told, no matter how inane the final product sounds.

        • your missing the point

          The reason they put in the “Dangerous Weapons ” language is so they can decide what weapons are dangerous like assault rifles and or assault pistols.
          So you have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms but anything other than a single shot .22 short is a “dangerous weapon ” and not protected by the Constitution.

        • I’m referring to the LEGAL definition. For instance in my state there are ‘dangerous weapons’ and ‘offensive weapons’ that are defined in the state code. A hand gun is a dangerous weapon while a hand grenade is an offensive weapon. It doesn’t matter that a handgun can be used either offensively or defensively, that’s not the point. The police, judges and juries need definitions. The DC code probably defines things such as tasers and pepper spray as ‘non-dangerous weapons’. That’s my guess anyway. That or whoever wrote that was an idiot.

        • I am used to seeing them called “less than lethal”, though they can be lethal as well.

        • The Fundamental Disagreement we have with the antigun nuts is that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is for the expressed purpose of maintaining a well-functioning militia to ensure the security of the Free State, or Condition of Liberty, and the antigun nuts are either useful idiots or actual communist operatives.

    • And the right to counsel wasn’t understood to encompass the right of an indigent to have an attorney provided for him/her by the state until Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)…

    • You may think you know that lawyers love to quibble, but I had a better idea of that when one of the Volokh lawyers said libel, slander, etc were valid exceptions to the First Amendment because it doesn’t prohibit congress from regulating speech, it prohibits congress from regulating “freedom of speech”, which apparently is a subset of all speech, minus slander, libel, etc.

      Using this same bullshit argument, it is easy to see how vulnerable the Second Amendment is, where RKBA means some subset of RKBA.

      • I always thought Libel and Slander weren’t protected because they had to prove a significant financial/emotional loss due to the attack on one’s character. IMO, slander and libel are merely punishments after the fact, like going to court over shooting a gun is.

        If you were righteous in using those words as you were in shooting the gun, then you’ll be okay. But if you weren’t, be prepared to pay.

        • As far as I know, there are no criminal penalties for slander or libel. You may have a right to drive a car but if you damage someone else’s car by running into you are still liable for the damages. If you run into someone’s car and there are no damages, then there’s no reason to bother the courts with it. Same goes for libel and slander.

          A better example would be fraud. If you lie to your friends that you have cancer and they put together a fundraiser and you take their money, you are not only liable to pay back the money, but you may be prosecuted and incarcerated for the crime of telling your friends you had cancer when you didn’t because that constitutes fraud.

  2. Wow. What clown wrote that statement? They either truly don’t get it, or they just don’t care. Both conditions are just as dangerous to our 2nd Amendment acknowledged God-given rights.

    • They don’t care. These are the people who believe in a ‘living constitution’. The Bill of Rights was written as a protection for us from them. To them it’s an unwanted obstacle.

    • They’re lucky that I’m not the judge that they submitted that crap to. I would slap a contempt of court judgement on them for the crime of lying to the court in that document.

      • Forget the contempt citation, this being a federal court, the court has the power to impose financial sanctions for frivolous pleadings under FRCP Rule 11—something that happens quite frequently, actually. And given that the Heller decision–to which D.C. was a party–specifically held that D.C.’s ban on handguns in the home was unconstitutional, in order to escape sanctions counsel would have to argue that handguns, which the Court held are at the core of the right of self-defense in the home–are “nondangerous.” Which of course makes no sense, since the city is trying to ban handguns in the street because they are dangerous.

  3. Non dangerous weapons? Well I suppose they would fit right in with all of my broken tools and dull shaving blades…

  4. BS. The core of the 2A is about defending against government tyranny, we all know that. Also what the hell is a “non dangerous weapon”? Isn’t that an oxymoron? Even double barrel Joe’s shotgun is plenty dangerous on the muzzle end…

    • The Founding Father’s concern was what became known as Bonapartism — The man on horseback leading a standing army in a military coup. They probably could not even imagine something like the modern administrative state. The Second Amendment provides no protection from the administrative state because it can still do its work while appearing to follow the literal word of the Constitution. The administrative state could even declare every adult an active member of the militia placing them under military discipline and passing out military grade weapons to everyone.

      • tdiinva,

        In my studies of the founding era, the Framers opposed a standing army for multiple reasons, the primary reason being that a tyrannical government would deploy that standing army against the people. The Framers also opposed the enormous expense of maintaining a standing army. Hence their comments about the people (militia) being able to vastly outnumber the largest standing army of which any government could bear from a cost perspective. Thus, the goal of a well armed and well regulated militia was to preserve a free state — a state free of government thugs and free of crushing government debt. How prophetic.

        As for your comment,
        “They probably could not even imagine something like the modern administrative state.”
        I disagree. The administrative state of England that the motherland imposed on the colonies is what finally pushed to colonies to independence.

        • The reach of the modern adminstrative state is far beyond anything that existed since the Roman Empire. The Adminstrative state of the 18th Century United Kingdom amounted to the tax collector and the press gang.

      • tdiinva said: “The administrative state could even declare every adult an active member of the militia placing them under military discipline and passing out military grade weapons to everyone.”

        Point 1 — They already have declared that, basically — though, the officers of the militia must be appointed by the States (Art. I Sec. 8, Cl. 16), a point currently much overlooked;

        Point 2 — If you realized WHO the “officers of militia” actually are (sworn law enforcement), you would realize that with a stroke of the Presidential pen, the entire federal law enforcement establishment could be remanded to State control, in whole or in part;

        Point 3 — Point 2 seems like it would be impossible, politically, — until you see that a clever politician could just make a politics out of selectively handing out these INSTRUMENTS of federal enforcement power (with budget appropriations in hand) to his political allies in the States, and selectively denying the same benefit to his political opponents — as opposed to merely handing out the FRUITS of that power, as is now done. Selling the Cow, not the Milk.

        Point 4 — Once enforcement and rule-making power are in different hands — you know, like it was before the “administrative state” — the rule-makers tend to stop giving the enforcers so much broad discretion in interpreting and applying the rules; laws and regulations will become more objective and more clear.

  5. Wait…what?

    If they’re “non-dangerous”, then they’re kind of not a weapon, right? Like shooting earplugs at protesters, etc. 😉

  6. “non-dangerous weapons”

    All weapons are by definition – “dangerous”. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be “weapons.”

      • The ones who made D- are the ones who retained too much real intelligence to write a phrase like “non-dangerous weapons” for public consumption.

      • Hell, we’re likely dealing with an “A” student here. The entire purpose of law school is to condition your mind so that you simply don’t think like a normal person anymore. Eg, a normal person would think that the person who caused an accident should be responsible for the consequences of his actions. A lawyer is trained to think that enshrining that idea into law is a bad idea (I am not making this up), in that it forecloses making the nearest entity which had any connection at all to the accident (see restaurant chain, hotel chain, car manufacturer, etc.) and has lots and lots of money the responsible party.

    • My law school instituted a mandatory bar test taking class to reverse an abysmal pass rate. The first question asked by the teacher was, “How many of you know a stupid lawyer?” About half the class raised their hands. He continued: “It doesn’t take brains to pass the bar, only knowing how to play the game.” In thirty years in this business, I have met more than a couple of brilliant attorneys, and a legion of idiots who can’t logic their way out of a paper bag. And that is in California, which is reputed to have the second toughest bar exam behind only New York.

  7. Truly twisted logic to support a indefensible argument. Liberals seem to twist language and logic for their purpose regardless of the plain language and facts in front of them.

  8. I don’t think DC is trying to win this. Arguing against carry is one thing. Throwing that whole “non-dangerous weapons” bit in there is cartoonishly absurd. Weapons by definition are dangerous.
    Weapon: a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

  9. So, attorneys for the District of Columbia — while examining the original copy of the Bill of Rights and applying lemon juice and heat — discovered that the Second Amendment really says:

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms in defense of hearth and home shall not be infringed.”

    Will the Chief Executive Officers of all the publishing companies in the United States please fire all of their editors for failing to print that important phrase in the Second Amendent?!?!?!

    /end_sarcasm

    On a more serious note, this pleading demonstrates that there is no rule of law anymore when it comes to federal matters. How much longer are we all going to tolerate this?

    • “…all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

      • Well said. DC will loose this case and pro-gunners will wave the victory flag when DC is forced to put a “shall issue” plan modeled after New York City. The result will be only DC elite, senators, congressmen and their friends will get permits.

    • “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear NON-DANGEROUS WEAPONS in defense of hearth and home shall not be infringed.” Wow, I have to lie down.

      • Yeah, I realized that I should have added “non-dangerous weapons” after it was too late to edit my comment.

  10. These folks are not as stupid as they would appear. They are going to argue and delay for as long as they can because they are irrationally afraid of an armed citizenry. They do know they are fighting a loosing battle and will be eventually forced to accept some sort of concealed carry with some sort of exclusion around a few federal buildings.

    • There are three analogies that destroy the arguments against the 2nd Amendment and that it like the 1st Amendment, has limitations not specifically stated in the Amendment.
      .
      1. If you have a working mouth, you should not be allowed in crowded, confined places because you MIGHT yell fire when there is no fire, which is against the law.
      .
      2. If you have a working mouth, you may NOT make public statements least you slander someone. (“slander” is a civil vice criminal matter).
      .
      3 You may not possess a working pen or other writing device because you MIGHT libel someone. Unapproved newspapers, magazines, movies, and internet pages are also prohibited (By the way, “libel” is a civil vice criminal matter).
      .
      Just remember that we have a “living, breathing” Constitution in which words can be redefined. Black is white, up really meant down, Right is Left, etc.
      .
      And that we really don’t know the meaning of the word “is”.
      .

      .

      .

  11. Black robe does not equal founding father status. Petition does not represent true definition of “shall not infringe”. Only a narcissistic a-hole would think highly enough of themselves to believe they would rate us allowing them to change the definition. Only The Insane would think highly enough of themselves to believe they would rate being equal to the source of the right.

    Let’s all get black robes and declare ourselves ‘Justices’

  12. “… Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to possess non-dangerous weapons for self-defense in the home.”

    1. There’s no such thing. A weapon by its very nature is dangerous.

    2. Show me any of those words in the 2nd A, other than “to”, “right”, and “the.”

    3. The guy pictured should have a sign that reads, “Dah Bears!”

  13. Come on. Don’t you all understand. These statements about “non dangerous” weapons are from the same idiots that believe that the Constitution is a living breathing document.

    Do you believe that the Constitution is a living breathing document? I don’t! What I believe is that our Government and Pubic officials have used to as toilet paper because they could not find any time or place where the Constitution as a living breathing document took a crap. So the only way the argument could be made that it “may” have taken a crap, (after all if its a living breathing document it has to eat thereto crap its intake) our officials had to use it as toilet paper to argue the Constitution itself took a crap and needs a bidet’.

    Its time for a bidet’ alright. We need to wash the public officials with one… because they are all full of….

  14. “At its core, the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to possess non-dangerous weapons for self-defense in the home.”

    This is how we know we are winning the war on guns. Even gun control proponents have to look at that sentence and realize it is insanity.

  15. Well; according to the United States Supreme Court of the 1800’s in the Dredd Scott V Sanford case. One of the reasons to not free the slaves was that along with the slaves having all of the civil rights; they would also have the right “and to keep and carry arms where ever they went”.

    Hmmm, sounds to me that means carrying an operable fire arm inside the home as well as every where else was the accepted constitutional practice, recognized by the Supreme Court, of the second Amendment.

    • Keep this stuff coming ThomasR. But remember the undereducated Liberals will call you a wacko, crazy, and brand you as radical. And because you brought up a case involving slavery, be sure to remind the Liberals that not a single Democrat voted to abolish SLAVERY! NO NOT EVEN ONE Democrat voted to abolish Slavery. So all you liberals, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Might not get you Rocky MTN High, but it will make your blood pressure go up. History does not lie, but politicians do.

      Radical; To get to the root of the problem.

      Go ThomasR. I really like your posts.

  16. Weapons are by their very definition dangerous.

    weap·on
    ˈwepən/
    noun
    noun: weapon; plural noun: weapons

    a thing designed or used for **inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.**
    “nuclear weapons”
    a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest.
    “resignation threats had long been a weapon in his armory”

    How does one inflict damage or harm without danger to the harm-ee?

    • Ditto for “dangerous.”
      dan·ger·ous
      ˈdānjərəs/
      adjective
      adjective: dangerous

      able or likely to cause harm or injury.

      The District’s pleading is oxymoronic…Emphasis on the moronic.

  17. Recently, I have chosen not to make comments because others have said what I am thinking, so there’s no point expending time to restate what someone else has said. In this case, even after reading quickly through the fifteen page document quoted, I have absolutely no idea WHAT to say. “non-dangerous weapons for self-defense in the home” is an über oxymoron, so ridiculous it has to be a joke…a really bad joke…because no person with a college education (as these Attorneys) could be so stupendously ignorant as to offer this phrase in any sort of seriousness. Possibly they are suffering from severe mental illness, which is the only viable explanation I can think of.
    However, if anyone else here can cite an example of a “non-dangerous weapon” I’d really appreciate being enlightened as to what that might be,

    • The “mental illness” to which you refer is called addiction. Like any addict; their addiction consumes them, every waking thought, every waking moment, they are consumed by their need to get another “hit”. And like any addict they will lie, cheat, steal and even kill to get another “fix”.

      What they are addicted to is power; and there is nothing they will not do to get more; more power and more control. They will not be satisfied until we the people are enslaved or dead.

      • How dare you Thomas! Don’t you know we are to act as sheepple? I applaud you. We only need 3% and we will have the largest armed force the world has ever seen to take this Nation back.

        Only 3% answered the call to arms to defeat England in the Revolutionary war. I do not advocate the overthrow of the Government. What I advocate is a call to restore us to the founding principals and accountability for any public official that violates their oath of office and does not protect and defend the Constitution and our rights.

        • I agree with your advocacy to restore the original principles and ideals of the Founders. That is what I have believed for a long time now. However, we may not be able to do so through the fragments of the Republic’s Structures still intact. We need far more than 3% of American Citizens to wake-up and get politically active to root out and replace the Socialists who are systematically tearing down the Constitutional Republic.

      • I thought of it as “power hungry”, but I like your assessment that it is an addiction. Same meaning, more potent visceral reaction.

    • DerryM,

      My best guess is that D.C. attorneys are referring to small arms when they say “non-dangerous weapons”. In other words they are excluding anyone’s right to have cannons, bazookas, grenades, mines, bombs, artillery, etc.

      • Yes, putting the best spin on it, perhaps he means ‘non dangerous’ as in not dangerous or unusual.

        But i’m not a lawyer… I can read English pretty well though. My copy of the Constitution says ‘keep and bear arms’. His must be the annotated version.

        • @brentondadams One of my thoughts in reaction to these attorneys citing past practices in support of their no right to carry a handgun in public was that it belies the known, long history (well into the 1960’s) of Americans carrying pistols and suchlike wherever they pleased (with some locally applied restrictions), so that point in the legal brief is just plain wrong.

    • Methinks you place too much trust in our institutions of higher learning.

      Anyway, as a legal matter they are probably referring to non-lethal weapons. Weapons are classes as ‘dangerous weapons’, ‘destructive devices’ and I’m guessing ‘non-dangerous weapons’ like tasers and pepper spray.

      • “Methinks you place too much trust in our institutions of higher learning.” Well, there I go again being inappropriately gracious…it’s a serious character flaw and I’m trying to correct it. 🙂

        I see your point about pepper spray, tasers and such, but even those can be lethal to a small percentage of sensitive persons. Apparently, if you “tas” a person with a pacemaker that can turn-out badly, and some people have sever allergic reactions to pepper spray, but I would not give these attorneys credit for having thought of those possibilities.

        • I’m thinking the term is already in legal use. I know the feds use the terms ‘dangerous weapons’ and ‘destructive devices’. My state uses the term ‘offensive weapons’ as opposed to ‘dangerous weapons’ which are defined in Iowa chapter 724 (good reading if you live here and have 20 minutes to spare – the entire firearms code is only 15 pages). A more appropriate term would be ‘less lethal weapons’. Since ‘dangerous weapons’ (e.g. firearms, large knives, brass knuckles) are legal with some restrictions, particularly in the public carry of such weapons, and ‘destructive devices’ (e.g. machine guns, hand grenades, dynamite) are extremely regulated, ‘non-dangerous weapons’ have very little regulation, so we don’t here much about them. Probably all spelled out in the DC and federal codes though.

  18. “does not “at its core” encompass a right to carry an operable firearm in public”

    What do these ignoramuses think “bear” means?

    • Judges have examined that very word and concluded that it (obviously) refers to possessing firearms outside the home … because it makes no sense that the Second Amendment codified a right to “bear” (possess) a firearm inside the home where you “keep” (possess) your firearms. Such an interpretation renders a redundant, superfluous reading of the right which is ridiculous.

      • I agree… although my common English interpretation is “Keep” means “to own” and “Bear” means “to carry.”

        • I agree with your definitions:
          keep == to own, rent, or borrow (with owner’s permission)
          bear == to carry

  19. Glad I’m allowed to have my “non-dangerous” weapon for home defense. Guess I need to pull out the old nerf bat.

  20. This is the human filth running our country. We need term limits, or at the very least an elected official must server only two terms then sit out at least one term before running for any office again.

  21. Would someone care to tell me what a “non-dangerous weapon” might be? ‘Cause Webster’s is telling me this:

    Weapon: something (such as a gun, knife, club, or bomb) that is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you.

    Dangerous: able or likely to inflict injury or harm.

    Bit of a contradiction in terms no?

  22. What might a “non-dangerous” weapon be…?

    Last I knew, in order for something to be considered a weapon, it has to be dangerous to someone.

  23. And this is why I said Gura was in the WRONG for not opposing a stay, and so many people jumped to his defense. Common sense dictates the District would keep pushing for a longer and longer stay.

    If a law is deemed unconstitutional, it needs to be off the books immediately, not given 30, 60, 90, 180 days for them to find another way to deny rights to people until the next lawsuit that will take several years.

  24. These people are not stupid, they know exactly what they wrote.
    Gun grabbers are becoming desperate, they’re just trying to push their agenda.
    All this means is we need to keep the pressure on, full court press, double our efforts and push through for the win.

    Now is not a time to underestimate them and relax.

    We are close, very close to lifelong legal changes that will enshrine the 2A for generations to come. I for one am putting all my political donations behind these and others. This is too important.

  25. This is the way things are going these days. You take the crystal clear meaning of the words in the second amendment, and you make up fantasy justifications to curtail those Constitutional rights, such as “justifiable need” and “compelling interests”.

    The contract between the states (the People) and the Federal government is enshrined in the Constitution, and no where is it written that the Federal government gets to change the contract after the fact.

  26. “the Second Amendment does not ‘at its core’ encompass a right to carry an operable firearm in public. Rather, the ‘core’ of the Second Amendment right is the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home, not the right to carry handguns in public. The Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to possess non-dangerous weapons for self-defense in the home.” ”
    .
    Based on this ridiculous argument alone, the judge should refuse the request for a stay extension and threaten to cite the attorney for contempt of court based on the statements absurdity, and require the attorney to reimburse the court for the waste of its time.
    .
    My God! Even a child can see through this one. This is a low-point in logic even for the species Liberal-us Progress-EVIL-us.
    .

    .

  27. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. How does the security of a free state translate to home protection. The part they need to pay attention to is. “Shall not be infringed.”

  28. “Non dangerous”…wtf? So synonyms would be words like: safe, innocuous, benign, harmless.

    So….how is anything that is “non-dangerous” then a weapon? This…is running loose in our legal system? God help us.

  29. And of course, the first amendment only regards the ability to speak freely and worship freely in one’s home. No public assembly either, do it in your home.
    The mental gymnastics these justices have to do to convolute simple amendments is shameful.

  30. For some reason the DC twits missed the definition of “bearing arms” given by Justice Ginsberg in an earlier case, and quoted by Justice Scalia in Heller:

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg from Muscarello v. United States regarding the “natural meaning of ‘bear arms'”. Justice Ginsberg said in her dissent that to bear arms means to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”

    That doesn’t sound like something that will happen solely within the confines of the home, unless you are a DC lawyer who is still beating his/her wife.

  31. This dingus is clearly laying out the master plan to delay past the Nov. elections. First we’re gonna do this, then we’re gonna do that, we shouldn’t do the other until the first is complete, what crap. All the judge needs to do is rule they can do whatever they want within that 90 days, then the stay is over.

  32. How does the Federal government get away with storing a living, breathing document inside a hermetically sealed, pressurised container for the public to examine. That’s totally evil, man!

  33. This is the last gasp, we’re all out of arguments argument. Can’t believe it stands a chance in hell of swaying the judge.

  34. “…the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    The key word is bear! Bear meaning of a person or to carry. It does not mean only if you are inside the home. The Framers would have laughed at the thought of only being able to bear arms while inside their homes.

  35. I also love that the founders chose the word “arms”…not muskets, guns, pitch forks, cannons, clubs, arrows or axes. Instead they chose a generality. Who’s to say in 50 years (God willing) “arms” won’t be rail guns, pocket sized lazers, repulsors or something else beyond our current imagination.

    I hope the rest of you are right….that the anti’s in DC are desperate.

  36. In addition to the whole bit about how modern technology free speech is protected, which didn’t exist at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the RKBA did not just refer to protecting hearth and home, it meant protection against a tyrannical state, which would entail using offensive-capable weapons of war outside of the home.

    I love this nonsensical use of the term “dangerous,” which of course gets to be defined by them.

  37. Why the hell do they “need” 180 days? Or even 90? There are at least 30-40 states with appropriate laws to copy from (though if I were the judge, I’d limit them to emulating the Constitutional Carry states). It should take them no more than 5 days to copy a set of laws that meet Constitutional muster.

    • Do you mean meeting Constitutional muster of a living breathing document?

      Or, do you mean meeting the Constitutional muster of the intent of the Founders?

      What is the definition of the word; “infringe”? Or does that depend on my definition of what the word is, is?

      • “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
        “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
        “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

  38. They are going to take Maryland’s may issue and write as effectively no issue. this will give them until a Hillary appointee is on SCOTUS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *