Likewise, the proposed gun rights amendment is not just a state version of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment (which many states have). It is a more extreme gun rights amendment, an outlier that only three other states have adopted. It would apply “strict scrutiny” to “any and all restrictions” on gun rights. If passed, this amendment would threaten to invalidate many sensible laws, from existing laws like the law prohibiting felons from having guns to modest proposals like background checks and red-flag laws. States that have adopted “strict scrutiny” language have seen costly legal battles to preserve common-sense gun laws, and some prosecutors have declined to enforce them. [More]
More "extreme" than "shall not be infringed"...?
Who does she think she is?
[Via Michael G]
3 comments:
"We can also unite against an extreme gun rights amendment, even though many support a basic right of gun ownership, as I do."
I'm puzzled that she thinks "strict scrutiny" to be more extreme than "shall not b infringed."
It would be useful if she were to flesh out her opinion on just what a "basic right to gun ownership" would entail.
After all, one thing we've seen no shortage of is politicians who claim to support the Second Amendment while trying to gut it.
She's parroting the rhetoric of the Gun Confiscation Lobby.
Further, there is NO assertable right for women to murder babies.
I can't tell who she thinks she is. She must not belong to any political party at all, because the reporter did not see fit to mention it anywhere in the article... other than the fact that she is planning to primary somebody else I don't know who also apparently has no party. But she thinks Democrats and Republicans "must come together," which is a hint.
Post a Comment