Considering how leftist lawyers seem to be, I wonder if the constitutional law classes in law school actually teach the Constitution.
My SIL's son (she is a hard core progressive Jewish woman from NY) is a lawyer, works for the feds in DC (ethics division - I LMAO every time I say that).
At the time Obama care was being shoved up our asses he was in law school and wrote a 1 page opinion piece which purported to prove the constitutionality of the law. I read it. It was a juvenile piece of regurgitated liberal propaganda.
IMO, it looked like he had never studied the Constitution or the Federalist Papers at all.
They did.
Yes, excellent reference material. Thanks. My friend graduated from TC Law school. Sheesh, I haven’t seen him in 30 years. Time flies when you’re working (sometime 2-3 jobs) and raising a family.
The second amendment is a bit incoherent. But its intent is clear. The militia, in those times were drawn from the average citizens of the area.
Historically it has always been recognized that the individual has the right to self defense, and has had the right to carry weapons appropriate to that end. In another era, it might have been a short sword, in the 18th century it was a rifle and pistol, and the reference to militia tells us he had the right to the kit equivalent to an infantryman’s.
One of the big non-arguments I hear is when people say, so do you have the right to a nuke?
The first answer is, if you need a nuke to defend yourself against your government, you’ve got big problems, and the constitution has already been abandoned.
But in seriousness, by natural law, you have the right to defend yourself, which means generally you have the right to weapons appropriate to the likely threat. In the street, a pistol. During a home invasion, a shotgun. During a riot, a rifle. You have the right to what you need. It isn’t up to the government to decide what you need.
But historically people have had the right to own the equivalent of a infantryman’s kit. Infantrymen don’t carry nukes, but if they start carrying them to police you, then all bets are off.
Well, as an attorney, I would say that Cooley’s position still holds.
Specifically, in 2008, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the SCOTUS for the first time invalidated a law regulating guns and found that the Second Amendment is not limited to protecting a right to have firearms for militia service. This case concerned the constitutionality of a 32-year-old District of Columbia ordinance that prohibited the possession of handguns and imposed significant restrictions on long guns. The SCOTUS, in a 5-4 decision, invalidated the ordinance as it violates the Second Amendment.
I rest my case. :-)