Replies

"Please quote where I said there was no protection before Kelo, or correct your post."

You made a big deal about pointing out that:

"It is misleading to say that everyone would "then" have no protection against such infringments on the RKBA. There is no federal protection against state and local infringments "now"."

So, use that same argument regarding the Kelo decision:

"It is misleading to say that everyone would "then" have no protection against such infringments on property. There is no federal protection against state and local infringments "now"."

Correct? Or are you saying that there were such federal protections against state and local infringments before Kelo, but there aren't now?

Certainly if the federal protection used to be there then you can point to a federal case which ruled that way? And why did the USSC rule there was no protection in Kelo when a previous case (which you're going to look up for us) showed there was?

So. Was there federal protection before Kelo or not?

"If interpreted correctly, would the Constitution prohibit state and local governments from infringing the RKBA, in your opinion?"

The courts have repeatedly ruled that it would not.

My position is that there was federal protection prior to Kelo, because the plain meaning of the Takngs Clause was understood and obeyed at all levels of government. With Kelo, the Court removed that protection.

Had governments not been infringing the RKBA for decades - with the acquiescence of the courts - your Kelo analogy might be defensible. As it is, a collective interpretation of the RKBA would not remove any protections.

_____________________________

My question: We have discussed ad nauseum the judicial interpretation of the Constitution with respect to the RKBA, so let's set that aside for now.

If interpreted correctly, would the Constitution prohibit state and local governments from infringing the RKBA, in your opinion?

Your reply: The courts have repeatedly ruled that it would not.

In your opinion, are those rulings correct, or are they in error, cowardly dodger?