So they’ll go after violations for other rights, but where the Second Amendment is concerned, state entities can do as they please without fear of federal checks? Even though infringements directly affect the “security of a free State” by disarming the citizen Militia? [More]
It's past time the Second Amendment was treated consistently by the DOJ -- especially since preventing deprivation of rights, that is, "secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty," is a mandated prerequisite for "consent of the governed."
6 comments:
Outstanding! Excellent as always.
The First Amendment is accorded "strict scrutiny" status, and prior restraint is forbidden.
Why do I not see these terms in association with the Second Amendment? Yes, I know: The Supremes have never established what level of scrutiny to apply. But why not? The language of the 2nd is much stricter, "shall not be infringed" versus "Congress shall make no law". And the preamble asserts that the "right of the people" is "necessary to the security of a free state", while no such justification is accorded the First.
Those two phrases are kill-shots in any discussion of the First. They should also be used in any discussion of the Second.
Thank you!!!
It’s way past time the AG and the DOJ stood up for the supreme law of the land.
"Why do I not see these terms in association with the Second Amendment?"
Consider that while there are literally thousands of SCOTUS rulings on First Amendment issues, one can literally count Second Amendment rulings without running out of fingers: Cruikshank, Miller, Lopez, Heller, McDonald. I may well have missed one or two.
The conclusion to be drawn is obvious even if it hadn't already been made clear by Associate Justice Thomas. As far as SCOTUS is concerned, the Second Amendment isn't even the "red headed stepchild" of the Bill of Rights. It's more like the orphan of a crack whore, dumped in the lap of distant relatives. The amount of love and attention SCOTUS is willing to spare on it is reflected in that.
Bottom line? SCOTUS doesn't like what the Second Amendment says.
DDS, I think those who have the Second's best interest at heart realize that pushing hard on the Second right now is risky. Roberts certainly cannot be trusted, and if Gorsuch or Kavanaugh were to turn for any reason at all, it could be a damaging loss. If Trump can get one more person in place - hopefully replacing the Lefty gnome, RBG - it would be a far better time to push hard, to establish the Second as the most important Amendment, since all else falls to it when the chips are down. I believe every country whose government became a tyranny did so _after_ depriving its people of their right to possess firearms, the means to resist.
I've thought about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, and it occurs to me that, were we in that position as a country, the arms that could be liberated from cops and some of the military would never even approach the hundreds of millions that are currently available to us. We might find ourselves with too few guns to arm even a sturdy III percent. Going up against a federal police force plus some large number of troops who went along with the plans of the government - and the weapons they can field - might be an exercise in futility, with too few guns to make a difference. Yes, an insurgency might eventually accomplish what needed to be done, but it would be a long and painful road for restoring liberty, if at all.
I ain't holdin' my breath...
Post a Comment