|
|
|
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:
What Should America Expect from a More Originalist Supreme Court?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Second, look for the court to offer greater clarity on the Second Amendment. Since Heller and McDonald, the Court has essentially gone quiet about gun rights. Left undecided are questions about the extent of the right to bear arms outside the home (implicating carry permits) and the nature and type of weapons precisely protected. If an originalist court follows the late Antonin Scalia’s reasoning that the Second Amendment attaches to weapons “in common use for lawful purposes,” then broad “assault weapons” bans will likely fail. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/29/2018)
|
"If an originalist court follows the late Antonin Scalia’s reasoning that the Second Amendment attaches to weapons 'in common use for lawful purposes,' then broad 'assault weapons' bans will likely fail."
I've been saying that for years, and that doesn't even take into account the real meaning of U.S. v. Miller:
1) reasonable relationship to the . . . efficiency of a well regulated militia
2) any part of the ordinary military equpiment
3) could contribute to the common defense
4) IT MUST BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT END IN VIEW.
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
