States can not only ban guns, they can ban self-defense. That's what a court just ruled. And we're told it is the "conservative" position... [More]Today's Gun Rights Examiner looks at a Seventh Circuit decision acknowledging a government power to ban not just firearms, but self-defense.
Also in today's offering:
- CA .50 caliber ban upheld
- Olofson appeal rejected
- Ohio concealed carry in restaurants bill introduced
- Alerts from Oregon and Nevada
- The latest from my fellow GREs
Lies will not sustain a tyrant. Nor his lickspittles.
ReplyDeleteMolon Labe, and bring your lunch, so I'll have something to eat, while seated on the bodies of your lackeys.
ReplyDeleteThat just caused me to exhale coffee through my nose when I saw that! Funniest dam words I've read in some time! Thanks Sean!
CIII
I wonder what ... no, we KNOW what other constitutional guarantees are also flatlining. Clear, common-sense commands to the new government that "thou shalt not," which pale mediocrities now read and say "Oh yeah? Why not?"
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting for them to ask who will stop them, "You and what army?"
Ahem.
Actually, I've read the decion and it's pretty good for pro-gun types.
ReplyDeleteBut y'all can believe what you want, of course, it's a free - if not terribly thoughtful - nation.
:D
It might help with thoughtfulness if you explained.
ReplyDeleteWhat? And take all the fun out of my condescending attitude?
ReplyDeleteOkay, a couple of points:
1. Activist judges suck. It does just as much damage to what little is left of the Republic when they're activist in a way that I'd arguably favor as it does when they go against liberty (which tends to be the default). The Court of Appeals is NOT a place where policy is set - that's either the legislature or the Supreme Court - in regard to legal interpretation. The Court of Appeals is only to determine whether the trial courts are applying law correctly. The CoA here rightly dealt with this thing, based on established law, not on what judges would like to have happen.
2. Along those same lines, it leaves the door wide open to take the matter up to where it DOES belong, in front of the Supremes.
3. The case upholds the concept of federalism. Tied in with #1 above, the idea of federalism is that each state is a "laboratory" and attempting to impose one-size-fits-all solutions across the board, from the DC level, only leads to more problems than it solves.
Bottom line - and the essay here could run for pages - is that the court rightly recognized the limits that have been set upon courts historically and traditionally. If you want a court that's going to step outside of what its supposed to do, then you're wanting something that is inappropriate, unAmerican, and is actually a major tool in the kits of those who would destroy the Republic, rather than save or at least preserve it. I understand the concept of "any barstool in a fight," but if you give validity to the tools that the Other Side likes to use, then it takes away your moral credibility to bitch about them when they're applied against you.
:D
1. The "activism" was when our rights were first infringed and these were upheld as binding blanket abridgements. Founding intent here is understood, and you fail to address my Rawles cite and my linked reference to Mr. Roland's stare decisis thesis. It is not me who has strayed here.
ReplyDelete2.I acknowledged the case going to SCOTUS in my column. And we'd all better pray they hear it and rule correctly.
3.Federalism also acknowledges a "supreme law of the land". Sorry, but rights ARE "one size fits all" for those who believe they are unalienable. Unless you believe we should still have slave states, and that laws repugnant to the Constitution are NOT void. Seems there was a precedent set on that somewhere back a ways, something to the effect that "courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
That is, of course, assuming that said "justices" have taken an oath to support it--and why would they, if they had no intention of doing so?
Bottom line--the history and tradition of an armed citizenry are clear. To suggest that upholding the right of the people to keep and bear arms--or even to defend themselves--is unAmerican and detracts from moral credibility, does not wash.
I find it more unAmerican that corrupt edicts and rulings both set and extend bad precedents so far beyond the original cases to the point that the judiciary effectively becomes the legislature, and our only "legal" recourse is to pray that nine political appointees for life may, once every quarter or half century, have a majority to reverse them.
Your way, it seems to me, increases the likelihood that the pressure cooker will explode.
But by all means, feel free to write that essay you mentioned and email it to me. I will post it unedited and we can continue the debate and allow you to address whatever support or concerns it elicits.
:D
Let me see what the Muse says as far as coherency and I'll hopefully be able to get you something up for discussion purposes. :D
ReplyDelete