Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 4rcane
A woman wrote this. I'm impressed:

"It's true that Second Amendment litigation is new, and Chicago's ordinance is unlike any firearms law that has received appellate review since Heller. But that doesn't mean we are without a framework for how to proceed. The Supreme Court's approach to deciding Heller points in a general direction. Although the critical question in Heller - whether the Amendment secures an individual or collective right - was interpretive rather than doctrinal, the Court's decision method is instructive.

With little precedent to synthesize, Heller focused almost exclusively on the original public meaning of the Second Amendment, consulting the text and relevant historical materials to determine how the Amendment was understood at the time of ratification. This inquiry led the Court to conclude that the Second Amendment secures a pre-existing natural right to keep and bear arms; that the right is personal and not limited to militia service; and that the "central component of the right" is the right of armed self-defense, most notably in the home." - Judge Diane Sykes, Ezell v. Chicago, 651 F. 3d 684 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2011, as quoted here; also note as Volokh summated here:

"The "plaintiffs are the 'law-abiding, responsible citizens' whose Second Amendment rights are entitled to full solicitude under Heller ... The City's firing-range ban is not merely regulatory; it prohibits the 'law-abiding, responsible citizens' of Chicago from engaging in target practice in the controlled environment of a firing range. This is a serious encroachment on the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use, an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self-defense."

92 posted on 02/14/2016 7:37:56 AM PST by StAnDeliver (Own it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: StAnDeliver; 4rcane

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights

Trump and his choice Sykes gets it; the “keep” = individual ownership, and the “bear” = being able to practice.

Notice that Cruz filed the amicus brief for the Heller decision:

https://www.tedcruz.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Heller_Amicus_Brief.pdf

Cruz should be on the Supreme Court.

Trump should pick him and Sykes; leave Pryor set where he is for awhile...


160 posted on 02/14/2016 11:28:03 PM PST by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57, returning after lurking since 2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson