|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
TX: Second Amendment rights aren't a gift from the courts
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The majority opinion begins with an appeal to emotion, by citing a list of recent shootings. It then goes on to invent an entirely new test for Second Amendment policy - whether guns or devices have a military purpose.
“Whatever their other potential,” the court wrote, such weapons “are unquestionably most useful in military service. That is, the banned assault weapons are designed to kill or disable the enemy on the battlefield.”
These “military combat features” have “a capability for lethality - more wounds, more serious, in more victims - far beyond that of other firearms in general, including other semiautomatic guns.” |
| Comment by:
dasing
(2/25/2017)
|
| All judges should have manditory constitunial law classes, ongoing classes! And if they try to change the constitution from the bench they should be disbarred, and removed from the bench! |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(2/25/2017)
|
Didn't the SCOTUS ruling in US v. Miller come to the opposite conclusion?
"...In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
This part of the ruling certainly implies that any weapon that HAS a military use should be protected by the Second Amendment. |
|
|
