"The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations," a statement on the organization's Web site said. "The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights."And what kind of regulations are "constitutionally permissible"?
According to Maximum Mike, all of them.
The apologists were out in force when then-Solicitor General Paul Clement pulled his little act of Heller sabotage. Oh, the Vote Freedom First President didn't know, we were told, and as proof offered Cheney affixing his name to a petition.
But you'll notice the brief wasn't withdrawn, and the arguments were repeated in court. So much for gratitude.
Is there anyone who honestly thinks BATFU isn't doing exactly what this administration wants?
[Via Jeffersonian]
3 comments:
My God given right to self preservation are NOT subject to any INFRINGEMENTS from some pencil pushing petty tyrant.
My Congressman, Eric "PATRIOT Act" Cantor, now has an opponent in the next House election. I will probably vote for her unless there's a constitutionalist also running. He's been up there in the Capitol for about 10 years and look at the state of our liberties. Anita Hartke is a Democrat. Is there a practical difference any more?
A letter to the editor today says we have to recognize and embrace the value of every life and stop worrying about the rights of people who find it necessary to own semi-autos.
A false choice. I own a semi-auto to defend my life and the lives of my family. But taking my semi-autos would be a "reasonable regulation" to this person.
She can TRY...
But no, she suggests getting our officials to pass laws to get men with guns to take them. That will probably be the last day I post comments on the Internet for a while.
Post a Comment