The Supreme Court case that could gut America’s gun laws, explained - More than a century of gun laws are potentially on the chopping block. [More]
Vox says that like it's a bad thing.
[Via Jess]
Friday, October 29, 2021
From Your Lips to God's Ears
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hah - so're so funny for posting this.
Stands in contrast to this from Harold:
https://www.ammoland.com/2021/10/what-courts-can-and-cannot-do-for-the-second-amendment/#axzz7Ai9QYAiW
'The Second Amendment states explicitly that it exists to protect “a well regulated Militia,” '
Ah, no!
What it says is that RKBA shall not be infringed.
In a prefatory clause it indicates ONE of the reasons why that must be true.
https://www.mic.com/articles/24210/gun-control-myth-the-second-amendment-makes-clear-guns-aren-t-just-for-the-military
Wishing it were otherwise, and trying to use SCOTUS lack of rulings on RKBA issues to make that wish come true, does not make it true.
What is rarely discussed by outfits such as Vox, is that for much of the Second Amendment's existence, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was not under ceaseless attack, so there was no reason for SCOTUS to get involved.
But that is not in alignment of Vox's version of the truth.
But as noted leftist and anti gun Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said:
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
I notice that there is no montion in the change in language. At the time of the writing of the Constitution and apparently in current "British" English, "well regulated" means something like "well constructed", "well conceived", or, perhaps, "appropriate". In North America, with a spread out population, it would be practically impossible for citizens to get to a "central" weapons store in a timely manner in the case of a sudden emergency. Also, if the weapons were held by an official, that official could prevent loyal citizens from actively supporting their government if the official holding their weapons was an active opponent of their government. The Constitution holds that the appropriate solution is to have weapons dispersed among the population and that the keeping or "bearing" of weapons shall not be prohibited. Thus, the ability of citizens to respond to an emergency or threat to their government could not have been blocked by their location or dependence on any official. The dispersed, individual possession of weapons among the citizen population thus serves the "commonwealth" of the whole.
I'm not that optimistic. SCOTUS probably has trouble using the bathroom without finding precedence for it. They are too political to make the decision that needs to be made and Roberts might hang the whole thing. The best case scenario is a 5-4 decision with Roberts in the minority and Thomas writes a "shall not be infringed" means what it says opinion.
Best likely case? Good-cause is thrown out and every state is forced to go shall-issue, maybe guaranteed reciprocity or non-resident permits. I'd really like to force CA to give me a permit.
Careful with that buy in Eugene. That hopium is strong stuff.
My fingers are crossed but the spidy senses say we’re about to be screwed.
If the justices prove they lack reading comprehension skills and historical understanding, If they craft a ruling using intermediate scrutiny to bow to .gov communists and go full treason against the constitution the country is done. Stick a fork in it. Shall not comply harder.
Post a Comment