|
|
|
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:
AZ: Courts and right to bear arms
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Not noted in the Shoemaker article was another statement by Scalia, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…” In McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states.
If Shoemaker had read the numerous decisions by the court he might discover that Supreme Court justices are more than fossilized ideologs. His attempts to polarize readers is symptomatic of all true believers. Paranoia about the far-left successfully repealing the Second Amendment is unwarranted.
total ban. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/2/2018)
|
Yeah, well, didn't one of the justices recently publish a New Yuck Times article calling for the repeal of the 2A?
Paranoid? "Even paranoids have enemies," ~~~Henry Kissinger. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/2/2018)
|
The writer conveniently omits any reference to the 14th Amendment, which applies the Bill of Rights to bind the states.
Under the 10th Amendment, the states retain all powers not delegated to the United States, but the 14th Amendment delegates the power to bind the states to the Second Amendment, superseding the 10th in that regard and rendering state gun control police powers moot. They cannot exceed that which has been established federally.
Heller also ruled that whole classes of arms in common use cannot be banned, or regulated so tightly that such regulation amounts to a de facto ban. McDonald extended that ruling to bind the states and their subdivisions. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/2/2018)
|
(second installment)
"Responsible people, acting responsibly with reasonable weapons, have little to fear about a total ban."
"Reasonable weapons"?
Conspicuously omitted, since Mr. Chanaud's letter is about "courts and the right to bear arms," is the U.S v. Miller decision, which identified literally which types of arms are within the ambit of the people's right to keep and bear. Unless he considers those arms as "reasonable weapons", his 'effete' analysis paints him as an insufferable popinjay.
Other than the veiled implication in his conclusion, the letter was... alright. |
| Comment by:
lucky5eddie
(6/5/2018)
|
"but says nothing about control"
Obviously this character does not understand the concept "shall not be infringed".
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] |
|
|
