Law abiding gun owners — a huge segment of our population — should not be deprived of their Constitutional right not to become victims — of lax law enforcement and young criminals emerging from our rotten culture.
Rights are “being” restored? Abolish the ‘86 firearms act signed by Reagan, then I’ll believe it.
The Constitution does not "grant" anything.
The right of self defense is given by God.
‘That Was Then,This Is Now!’
.
XLNT Dean- Superbly done.
Boy, I can’t wait to see what happens with the lawsuits in IL.
I have been wondering if the M-14 rifle was ever surplused before 1968. US rifles had always been made available to civilians when the military no longer wanted them. The same rifles used by US forces. It should still be so.
Historically, the framers took for granted that the contents of the ninth and tenth amendments were implied and not necessary to articulate. Because the Antifederalists were able to stir up opposition on the basis that the ninth and tenth amendments were necessary, and that 1A, 2A, etc were therefore also necessary, the framers agreed to add them by amendment on a priority basis as the price of getting what they were desperate for - ratification of the Constitution and the creation of a serious national government.Thus, in the case of 1A and 2A in particular, we see wording which basically denies the need for the amendments - “the freedom of speech," "the freedom of the press,” “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” If a right exists, why pass an amendment to enforce it?
But what exactly were (hence are) the scope of these rights? In writing Heller, Scalia did a deep dive into history to define what RKBA entailed and thus does entail. He did not just wave his hand and say “RKBA.”
Likewise “the” freedom of the press was - thus (properly) is - bounded. Pornography laws existed at the time of the founding, and so did libel law. Consequently, “the” freedom referred to in 1A was conservative - 1A did not assay to modify pornography or libel law. At all. And thus the matter stood, from the passage of the BoR to the 1964 handing down of the (unanimous) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision by the Warren Court. Sullivan limits the right of government officials - including judges - to sue for libel. It does so on the basis that politics should be a free-fire zone between (presumptively) roughly equal contestants who can give as good as they take.
It was easy enough for the justices of the Warren Court - “liberals” all - to trust the MSM to have their back. The six Republican-named justices now sitting on SCOTUS? Not so much.