Problem with taxes, though, is that the gubmint can use them to keep people from owning guns.
“Sure, you can have a .357 on your nightstand but it’ll cost you $2000 a year in ‘gun taxes’”.
Great interview. I’m glad you posted this.
It gave me a lot of insight.
Q: What’s the next big Second Amendment issue you’d like to see the Supreme Court settle in a definitive way?The USSC's idea of selective incorporation just amazes me. This is because John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states. So given that Bingham and the 39th Congress essentially pre-incorporated all the Constitution's privileges and immunities into the 14th A., not just the ones in the BOR, I see no basis for the USSC's idea of selective incorporation of the BOR into the 14th Amendment.
A: Assuming that we win this case, I think the next big one we’d like to see is what goes under the name of “the incorporation issue.” That is, whether the Second Amendment is “incorporated,” via the 14th Amendment, to apply to the states. You’re likely to see that kind of litigation in a place like Chicago or New York or somewhere where there is really some pretty onerous gun regulations, but it is in a state or local context, not a federal enclave like the District of Colombia.
Does anybody have any insights to the USSC's selective incorporation other than the fact that the Court seemingly doesn't read congressional discussions?
See the first eight amendments in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional record. The page is one of Bingham's discussions about the 14th Amendment.
http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nNote that the referenced page is dated for more than two years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. So Bingham was evidently reassuring his colleagues about the scope and purpose of the ratified 14th Amendment.
PING