Great Summary of Parker/Heller

 

1. Don’t need to get all wordy and argumentative.  Just two words suffice:
   “The People”

   Not “the militia”

   Posted by dick       09/27/2007  at  05:29 PM  



2. Second, the Amendment restricts the actions of the federal government, but not the states

   So, with that logic in mind, perhaps the people of Alabama would like to rescind the 5th amendment in their state.  How is it not exactly the same argument?

   Posted by Elliott       09/27/2007  at  09:12 PM  



3. Elliot: odds are, the 5th is incorporated via another (I want to say 19th, but I’m probably mistaken). The 2nd hasn’t been…

   Which means we REALLY want them to bring this argument to the Supremes. If they do, and the SCOTUS rules properly, then a LOT of state-level bans go away (or, at least, CAN)…

   Posted by Strings       09/28/2007  at  03:54 AM  



4. Strings, I think the 2nd has been incorporated into the 14th. I posted about that a couple months back. But the 14th was gutted by the Slaughterhouse Cases decision of 1873.
   However, no right nor amendment neeeds to be incorporated into another in order for it to stand.

   DC’s 1st argument is crap. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” is the dependant clause. It just happens to come before the dependant clause “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” because that’s how they wrote things back then.

   DC’s 2nd argument is crap. What “part of shall not be infringed” don’t they get? Even if states somehow have the right to register them, they can’t outright ban them. SanFwanswishco tries to every couple years, and then the 9th Circuit court shoots them down.

   DC’s 3rd argument is crap. DC is most explicitly NOT a state. It is an area under direct control by Congress. Personally I think the Founder’s view was that this would be a city in which no one lived; it was just an area where government would meet once in a while.

   DC’s 4th argument is crap. Handgun bans don’t do a thing to lower crime rates (or suicides) because criminals DON’T OBEY THE LAW. God knows how many studies have shown this, for decades now. Go look up Kates & Mauser and read the opus they’ve been working on.

   Other parts of DC’s view that I’ve read are based on Miller 1939. Boy howdy, if there ever was a BS, corrupt decision by SCOTUS this was it. When this case (Parker) is upheld, Miller almost has to be overturned.

   Now I’ll go read what CATO has to say ... How about that, they agree with me 100%.

   SCOTUS had better not pussy out on this. And they had damned well make the right decision, and do it before next election day. 100 million armed citizens are totally sick of this bullshit and we want an end to it now.

   Posted by Drew458       09/30/2007  at  05:43 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.