PDF link from the American Civil Rights Union's smackdown of the brief from the Solicitor General and affirmation of an individual right.
Nothing will change except that cities / states where ownership or carry is banned will add to their bank accounts the revenue collected in license fees, registration and permits as they rent us our 2nd amendment rights.
This case is so much sh*t’n shineola........just my opinion of course. !
Stay Safe Doc !
Will this have an impact on the decision,,?
Montanans Insist on Gun Rights
Both lower courts have up-held right to carry. It is the government going against the will of the people fighting this in court.
There are way too many drunk drivers out there and people are dying all of the time.
The only thing to do is ban cars for everyone.
That will stop all automobile deaths...
Ban crime, works every time!
To begin with, D.C. has seemingly fallen into the trap of presentism, evidently fantasizing America's 18th and 19th century pioneers reaching for their cell phones to dial 911 when vandals invaded their properties.
Next, the "bad news" for pro-gun rights people. The USSC decided in Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, a state land grab case claiming 5th A. protections, that unless explicitly stated, the federal Constitution's general restraints on government power applied only to the federal government, not to the states. So the 2nd A.'s government restraint that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed was arguably a restraint only on the federal government, not the states. The states had seemingly reserved the power to infringe on gun rights for themselves even if they forbade the federal government from doing so.
Also, note that in the time between Barron v. Baltimore and the Civil War that word about the scope of the federal Constitution was evidently not getting around. This is reflected by the fact that some federal legislators at the time of the making of the post Civil War 14th A. thought that the federal BoR had always applied to the states as well, Sec. 1 of the 14th A. being a waste of Bingham's time.
Now for the good news for pro-gun rights people. Regardless what the scope and purpose of the Founders was for the 2nd A., the makers of the 14th A. essentially redefined the scope and purpose of the 2nd A., seemingly inadvertently.
More specifically, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states. (Bingham had expressed dismay that the USSC had decided in Barron v. Baltimore that the BoR didn't apply to the states as well.)
See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record. This is one of Bingham's discussions about the scope and purpose of the 14th A. after that amendment had been ratified.
http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nSo given Bingham's inclusion of the 2nd A. when clarifying the scope and purpose of the 14th A. for his colleagues, there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect the personal right to keep and bear arms from both the federal and state governments as much as any other constitutional privilege and immunity protects other personal rights.
So remember to get your guns out whenever you hear a discussion of the 2nd A. where the 14th A. is not also mentioned.
As a side note concerning Bingham's inclusion of the 2nd A. when clarifying the 14th A., consider the following words of Jefferson.
"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808. ME 12:59
BTTT!
Sen. Allen makes a good case, but he put the cause of action backwards.
You don't ask the Supreme Court whether the People have a right, you tell them.
PING!
Dennis Hastert's seat lost in Special Election today It's always darkest before the dawn.
Inside the Ring: China missiles (carrier-killers)
The Tragedy of the Democratic Party Cry me a river.
Party Donations Show G.O.P. Edge
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
P.S. Has any body figured out how to search for keywords or posters?
This demonstrates how tyranny operates.
The right of self defense is evident. A damn ant or spider or house mouse is born with that right.
But tyranny operates not by shifting the blame, but by shifting the enforcement. So if the judges decide “Oh, well, a modern interpretation means you get a gun only if we (or some of our minions) approve it...), then you can bet your ass that when you have a gun and they didn’t approve it, it WON’T be the judges who are there to take it away. It will be professional assassins.
Remember Ruby Ridge?
We rejected the “I was just following orders” at Nuremberg.
This is a logical result when one realizes that most crimes were being committed by criminals, not guns.
...irritates a bit. Most crimes? Governor, which crimes are guns responsible for?
OK, it's a quibble at best, but it shows just how far anti-gun argument has invaded. Even as we fight against it, we seemingly accept their assertions.
Another George Allen used to hold his hands less than a foot apart and say, “the difference between victory and defeat is this much.”
Care to summarize this for the layman?
I speak, read and write English better than 95% of the people in this country, but here goes:
I don't care what SCOTUS decides. I can read what the Founders of this great nation wrote, and enshrined in the BOR. So be advised, I am armed, trained and have the will and means to move forward no matter what the decision.
Done deal.
5.56mm
I have one big problem with this article.
I don’t care what the effect of gun ownership is on crime. The second ammendment is clear. If the facts proved that gun bans decreased crime would it then be ok to ban guns? Where in the second ammendment does is say anything about gun rights being balanced against crime rates?