JURIST Guest Columnist Allen Rostron of the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law says that by approaching the District of Columbia v. Heller case in a spirit of conciliation and compromise rather than extremism, the Court can make its ruling on the interpretation of the Second Amendment a victory for everyone...
What this is, in fact, is positioning.
For years, the antis have been adamant that 2A does not articulate an individual right.
They see they may be repudiated and proven demonstrably wrong, so they're trying to give themselves cover without giving up ground. If you can't win the debate, change its terms.
What really ought to disturb everyone who's paying attention is that the insidious position advocated by this gungrabber insider is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the one advocated by the "Vote Freedom First President" through his Solicitor General--and anyone who thinks that bit of treason was not directed from the top is worse than a fool.
7 comments:
Positioning is correct. Saw the same thing with Tribe's op-ed. They know they're going to lose this round, and they prudently seek to minimize the damage.
As for the administration's behavior during Heller, I cannot disagree. An entitled Tory drone with a Texas veneer is still an entitled Tory drone.
This guy's an asshat. The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to issue rulings with a "spirit of conciliation and compromise," it's to rule according to the Constitution of the United States.
The anti-freedom gang KNOWS (barring a miracle) they are going to lose this decision. And they're scared shitless.
"Middle ground"
Isn't that another term for "no man's land?"
If it isn't, maybe we need to make it that way?
In dealing with the Gun Control crowd, it's helpful to understand their definition of "Conciliation"...
"We (Gun Control Fanatics) know we're going to get hosed, so we're going to make nice until you (Gun Rights Advocates) are off balance and we can bend you over the barrel again".
... And "Compromise":
"You (Gun Rights Advocates) will give up a little, and we (Gun Control Fanatics) are going to reciprocate by giving up not a damn thing, and screw you for a fool if you think your position will be improved by 'compromise'."
I guess there's something wrong with me--I can't for the life of me figure out why the "middle ground" between liberty and thralldom is preferable to an "extremist" pro-liberty position.
Here was my take.....
Dear Allen:
Isn't this nice, finding middle ground. And, so timely, too.
I don't wish to detract from your optimism, which is an attitude that I support. But you must fully realize that lawful gun owners have had quite enough of "Brady Campaign-style" middle ground and compromise. It's really quite nice, and convenient, that you're calling for that now, when the Brady status-quo all along has been to incessantly call for one restrictive measure after another, all in the name of compromise and "common sense." Given the trajectory of the Brady's strategy, there would, or could, have been no other possible ending-point than the complete criminalization of firearm ownership in the United States.
And those of us who know the issue fully realize that. Now, at long last, it's time for some common sense constitution-style.
You are certainly stretching for clues that the Supremes might support the Brady's position - which in truth would have rendered the entire amendment into utter meaninglessness. Yes, Roberts hinted that he might ponder trigger locks...just before he joked that during an emergency, one would have to turn on their light and put on their reading glasses before fumbling with a trigger lock in the middle of the night, while facing the uncertainty and stress associated with a burglar in the sanctity of one's home. For you to say he'll support the trigger lock position is a bit of a stretch. But hey...you should go with what you've got.
Finally, you state that the meaining of the amendment is in the eye of the beholder...that it's a "toss-up." How nice - it appears that seveal of DCs amici took that befuddled approach, including that group of cunning linguists.
But just remember this - one doesn't have to be a law professor or a PhD to understand that the militia clause re-affirmed the importance and necessity of a citizen's militia, while the guarantee clause stated in no uncertain terms that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Thanks for your article, I had fun with it.
April 02, 2008
"it appears that seveal of DCs amici took that befuddled approach, including that group of cunning linguists. "
Carl,
Well said! That's funny.
I bet he didn't get it.
Post a Comment