|
|
|
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:
High court case bad news for gun regulation advocates
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
With only three liberal justices remaining on the Supreme Court since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the fact that at least four of the current justices voted to take a Second Amendment challenge is a reliable signal that they believe that a majority will agree to expand the right to bear arms established in Heller.
But we don’t need to rely on the case grant alone to make this prediction. We can listen to the conservative justices themselves. Since Heller was decided, five of the six conservative justices have telegraphed their disappointment in how narrowly lower courts have applied it. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/29/2021)
|
"For 70 years, the court had considered Second Amendment rights to be confined by the text's opening phrase, "a well- regulated militia," and treated it as a collective right."
And, there it is again.
They did no such thing, and Scalia made that clear in Heller.
The Miller Court assumed the defendant had an individual right to bear arms, but had see no evidence that sawed-off shotguns were in common use or were "part of the ordinary military equipment." The Court ignored the government's "collective right" argument and focused on the weapon. All that decision did was to codify what kinds of arms were protected; it was SILENT on the collective/individual rights issue.
We have to debunk this nonsense at every turn. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] |
|
|
