The ORIGINAL gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters. (As denounced by Bill Clinton on CNN!)
“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government – even the Third Branch of Government – the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people-which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” -- from DC v HellerNote in particular the tie in of constitutional vs unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment (which has been held to require strict scrutiny) and the Second Amendment followed by the sentence "The Second Amendment is no different".There is an inconsistency involved here that SCOTUS own doctrines will eventually require SCOTUS to revisit and resolve.Either the Second Amendment requires strict scrutiny or it is in fact different.
There is a poison pill in the decision. The court repeatedly expresses that concept that the ONLY weapons protected by the 2A are the types in common use. That leaves the door wide open for any governmental entity to restrict arms then say they are not in common use, i.e. the NFA.
I hope all the commies in Hartford are quaking in their boots (Malloy, Lawlor, and those in the general assembly) over this. They may see their precious gun control "ruled" unconstitutional.Of course, we in The Armed Civil Disobedience don't need a "ruling" to tell us what we already know.DEFY-DECEIVE-EVADE-RESIST-SMUGGLE-DEFENDStill your move, tyrants.
Shall not be infringed, don't ya know!
The attempt is absolutely to instill "in common use" in "trade" for admitting "strict Scrutiny". I have argued many many times that the tiny sentence identified above is the money shot but KNOW THIS - there is a SERIOUS conflict within that too! "In common use" carries no more merit than "within the home". They are grasping at straws, for sure. We know that SCOTUS already rejected the "technology" argument regarding ink wells and ink pens. Printing presses and laser printers. Technology cannot, by advancement, limit a right. SO that angle is busted - eventually. We have to not take the bait, for sure. But we also have to see the real angle in admitting 'no different". The example offered is a PERMITTED event, one where a permission slip is "allowed'. Assembly on the public roadway - versus on the sidewalk. See it yet? I argue, and am chided for arguing, that next up is "Got your bible carry permit?". Guess what? A Bible carry permit is EXACTLY what is being set up with this thing. OR ending permission slips altogether is being admitted here. Which is it? Well lets look at something else the court said, ok? Enumeration of a right necessarily removes certain policy positions from the table of debate. Regardless of some problems and contradictions, the convoluted due process/privileges and immunities incorporation itself, the Heller - McDonald straight left and right hooks knocks out almost all modern day gun control. SO ask yourselves folks, WHY in sam hell is the NRA still pushing state friggin preemption? Why when the 7th demolished the longstanding prohibitive code did it make a deal with Democrats to put ALL of it AND MORE right back in the code in "trade" for preemption? WHY WHY? WHY? Well, the truth is because the NRA is exactly what I have said it is for a long time. Its is the biggest gun CONTROL, rights CONTROL group in the country! Why is the NRA not nailing every gun control to the wall, giving up totally on legislation and simply devoting itself to judicially removing this mightmare instead of ADDING more legislation? Why didn't it nail GCA and NFA right on the heels of McDonald? ALL the language needed is RIGHT THERE in those two decisions. Cuz the NRA is really playing for the other team. That's why.
Just a slightly libertarian view...regulating protests in the street is exactly why the government should not be in charge of building, maintaining, or policing the roads. Keeping protesters off private property is Constitutionally sound and poses no grave difficulties. Keeping them off of property that is owned and administered by the government leads to government deciding when a right is permitted.
Post a Comment