Posted on 10/29/2019 5:51:50 PM PDT by DoodleBob
Supreme Court briefs are not known for their colorful writing. Readers are far more likely to encounter austere Latin legalisms than gripping personal narratives. Yet March for Our Lives chose to upend this norm in its amicus brief—a legal filing written by an interested outside party—in the upcoming Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. Its brief “presents the voices and stories of young people from Parkland, Florida, to South Central Los Angeles who have been affected directly and indirectly by gun violence.”
The Supreme Court confirmed earlier this month that it would hear the case later this term, its first gun-rights case in nearly a decade. At issue is whether a New York City regulation that prevents licensed gun owners from transporting their firearms to second homes or gun ranges outside the city runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
...
For decades, gun-control advocates have left this narrative partially unanswered, offering depressing statistics but no compelling constitutional principle. They cannot afford to do so any longer. The March for Our Lives brief marks the beginning of a long-needed effort to offer a pro-gun-control constitutional narrative, one that calls attention to the constitutional rights and goods vindicated by gun regulation. These include a collective understanding of self-defense, as well as constitutional guarantees such as the right to public assembly and interests such as access to public education. The point is that the right to bear arms is not the only constitutional commitment implicated in the guns debate, and the Court ought to consider those other commitments as worth balancing with the right to bear arms, not as inherently subordinate to it.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
The Constitution does not govern lives.
The Consitution governs government.
The Constitution does not govern lives.
The Consitution governs government.
This screed, one cannot call it a well reasoned argument, is long on emotion and none existent on constitutional basics.
It totally ignores the very constitutional bases for the 2nd Amendment and appeals solely on emotions. Guns are bad so only the government should have guns(Stalin, Hitler or Mao never enters their thoughts)
But even their leftist ideology blinds them to their rants that cops are “evil racists thugs” that need to be disarmed.
So who can be trusted with weaponry? Nobody because evidently the leftist have created a prefect world where there is no crime.
Even God created Eden with a serpent but not leftists, apparently...
It’s The Atlantic
What did you expect???
“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
Accepting the leftist arguments regarding wording, clearly they believe ONLY the well-educated are permitted to read books.
2nd Amendment / Young Libtards bump for later...
“And at this point I wouldn’t care and I wouldn’t be morally obligated to defend any of their rights, even the most basic, if they were in personal danger.”
I hear you.
And, in one sentence, accidentally admitting that gungrabbers have no Constitutional basis.
Affirmative action writ large.
Accepting the leftist arguments regarding wording, clearly they believe ONLY the well-educated are permitted to read books.
Even worse, the mistaken "logic" of the linked article would identify the purpose of keeping and reading books and then claim that an alternative way to achieve that objective would permit violating the mandate of the amendment.
For example, one might suggest that the "value" that the Founders were trying to protect was the availability of educated persons in order to run the government. Thus, recognizing that we have millions more educated people than are necessary to run the government, we might actually be better off if non-government people were denied an education. This might reduce the divisiveness currently plaguing our nation.
Unfortunately for the anti-gunners, the Founders authored the Second Amendment so that the right to keep and bear arms would be protected. This alone was protected despite any alternatives that might protect the same values. Similarly, the Founders ratified the Second Amendment DESPITE their expectation that some values might be negatively impacted. To suggest otherwise would be an insult to our Founders.
The anti-gunners are also going to face a difficulty when addressing the fact that handguns kill many more people than AR-15s. This fact might suggest that only AR-15s may be owned. Would that be a step in the right direction for the anti-gunners? I don't think so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.