Replies

"So why do all the folks who claim to believe in Second Amendment rights still put the stupid qualifications on it? It is no darned wonder we are losing this battle! "

There's an easy answer to this, it's the same reason there are people who use the term "Separation of Church and State" when referring to the first amendment. Misinformation, and a lack of ability to take the time to actually READ precisely what the Constitution says. Instead they rely on others to "interpert" the "language" of the Constitution.

In other words, plain IGNORANCE!

I have a hard time believing that Ted Olson and John Ashcroft are ignorant about the Second Amendment. Yet, the brief filed by the soliciter general on behalf of the government in the Emerson and that other, companion case said that the current position of the DOJ is that the Second Amendment is an individual right WHICH IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS.

They urged the Court to refuse Emerson and the other case, which it did. Poor Dr. Emerson will end up having a criminal record because of a routine, boiler-plate restraining order in his divorce case.

While Emerson is an important case, especially if you live in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi (5th circuit territory), if all that it means is that restrictions must be reasonable, well then courts rarely find that anything governments do is unreasonable.

After all, the Second Amendment doesn't say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed.