Under any plausible standard of review, a legislature's choice to limit the citizenry to rifles, shotguns and other weapons less likely to augment urban violence need not, and should not, be viewed as an unconstitutional abridgment of the right of the people to keep or bear arms.OK, Larry--using your standard, let's see you walk down the streets of DC bearing a rifle or shotgun.
Oh, that's not allowed either? And that's OK--a "plausible standard" for your "scholarly interpretation" of what the Framers intended, too?
I find it more than creepy that a Cult of Set devotee of Thulsa Doom presumes to lecture anyone on "sanity."
What is the riddle of steel?
Apparently why you can't have it and they can.
Desperation. He knows they're going to lose, and is appealing to Chief Justice Roberts's "judicial modesty" to get out with a narrow ruling. The rest of the piece is just a setup for that.
ReplyDeleteFor a Harvard professor, 'Larry' sure seems like a dumbass to me.
ReplyDeleteI thought the whole that "Assault Weapons" were so prevalent that they were augmenting urban violence? Isn't that the argument I keep hearing as to why we ought to issue infantry weapons and APCs to the police?
ReplyDeleteSo - this maroon actually wrote a book called "The Invisible Constitution?
ReplyDeleteI guess it IS invisible -- to him...
If one had the time, it would be easy to write a few thousand words about just what is wrong with that article. I expect better from a law professor -- at least if he wants to be considered an honest man.
ReplyDeleteOh, Lawrence, Lawrence, Lawrence...
ReplyDelete...nothing I have discovered or written supports an absolute right to possess the weapons of one's choice.
The RTKBA is not written on paper, or "granted" by fiat from royalty, aristocracy, oligarchy, or democracy. It's a HUMAN RIGHT! I'm shocked, SHOCKED! that an educated man like yourself doesn't understand this. Do you even understand the culture from which the Constitution arose?
Using a case about national legislative power over gun-toting in the capital city as a vehicle for deciding how far Congress or the state of California can go in regulating guns in Los Angeles would be a silly stretch.
Silly. Strange word to use. Denial of human rights by governments has always resulted in bloodbaths. Bloodbaths instigated by tyrants seeking to deny human rights to human beings inside their hegemony aren't "silly."
God, I am so tired of this. The historical record is so clear, so specific, and so available that there is simply no excuse for anyone who can read at the 8th grade level to "misunderstand" the meaning and the consequences.
Amen, gaviota. I think they just intend to fatigue us into surrender.
ReplyDeleteThat is why those who know nothing of history are doomed to repeat it and why the same people who are against the 2nd Amendment as well as freedom in general are the ignorant sheep who know nothing of history!
ReplyDeletewouldn't rifles be more more likely to augment urban violence as they have a greater ability to penetrate dwellings and cover? Law of unintended consequences could come into play if DC morons don't get everything they want.
ReplyDeleteWell, April 19th is coming around again...I'll be at an Appleseed.
ReplyDelete