If the NRA is actually using some out of stater to change CALIFORNIA law, then, yes, I see why Mr. Gura wants it terminated. The NRA appears to be TRYING to get our rights taken from us, and this case shows it. Mr. Peruta is NOT a CA resident and has no standing to be able to sue.
Would that he could, as he needs protection while here, I'm sure, and gun laws should, ideally, only be LOCAL, and then only deal with when and where one might discharge his weapon in a NON-EMERGENCY situation.
Had the NRA not butted into heller at the last minute - the decision way have been better and not afforded the due process incorporation that followed. Guts may well have succeeded on privileges and immunities if the NRA had just stood down (like it does any other time).
I hope gura kicks the NRAs ass up one side and down the other because the NRA functions as a tool of government control over our rights. Gura isn't a saint and I disagree with his angles sometimes but at least he understands what the real problem is and actually attacks it - and quite successfully so far. The NRA has got to see that it's time to CHANGE.
The right to keep and bear arms applies to all the states, and enables all, even non-state residents, to keep and bear arms. I thought SCOTUS Chief Justice Taney expressed this clearly already in 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision:
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.”
Was the freedom that Dred Scott sought greater than the freedom allowed us today?
Have you ever tried to help a drunk friend walk up some stairs? They have some vague idea of what it means and they do try to help but only manage to get their legs and feet tangled up with yours. But they need to show they can do it because otherwise they'd be useless.
What we're seeing here is a similar process at work. The NRA isn't a pro-2A group and frankly has no idea how to be one. But they want the reputation of being one and in the process keep getting in the way of the people actually doing the work.
5 comments:
If the NRA is actually using some out of stater to change CALIFORNIA law, then, yes, I see why Mr. Gura wants it terminated. The NRA appears to be TRYING to get our rights taken from us, and this case shows it. Mr. Peruta is NOT a CA resident and has no standing to be able to sue.
Would that he could, as he needs protection while here, I'm sure, and gun laws should, ideally, only be LOCAL, and then only deal with when and where one might discharge his weapon in a NON-EMERGENCY situation.
To repeat, NRA sucks wind. Again.
Had the NRA not butted into heller at the last minute - the decision way have been better and not afforded the due process incorporation that followed. Guts may well have succeeded on privileges and immunities if the NRA had just stood down (like it does any other time).
I hope gura kicks the NRAs ass up one side and down the other because the NRA functions as a tool of government control over our rights. Gura isn't a saint and I disagree with his angles sometimes but at least he understands what the real problem is and actually attacks it - and quite successfully so far. The NRA has got to see that it's time to CHANGE.
The right to keep and bear arms applies to all the states, and enables all, even non-state residents, to keep and bear arms. I thought SCOTUS Chief Justice Taney expressed this clearly already in 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision:
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.”
Was the freedom that Dred Scott sought greater than the freedom allowed us today?
I thought the Pureta decision still required "good cause" but that pleading "self defense"=good cause.
This is much different than eliminating a "good cause" showing all together.
Not much of a win IMO. Of course, anytime a court thinks that they can vote on a "right" saddens me.
Have you ever tried to help a drunk friend walk up some stairs? They have some vague idea of what it means and they do try to help but only manage to get their legs and feet tangled up with yours. But they need to show they can do it because otherwise they'd be useless.
What we're seeing here is a similar process at work. The NRA isn't a pro-2A group and frankly has no idea how to be one. But they want the reputation of being one and in the process keep getting in the way of the people actually doing the work.
Post a Comment