|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
National Review article on SCOTUS treatment of 2A
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ndment-rights/
Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
I'm a bit concerned regarding the author's parting thought...
Quote:
Be that as it may, I think the actual key to the issue is found in the first paragraph of the piece... Quote:
This has been the basis of Thomas' lamentations, that the Court has been allowing them to 'get away' with eroding the 2nd Amendment by not clarifying what was implicitly intended by Heller, as evidenced by the explicit language used in dissents to denial of cert by individuals such as Scalia and Thomas, along with even Kennedy in other cases. This seems to be what the author is taking the long way 'round the barn to stating; claiming a need to develop a 'new theory' to, essentially, explain what the Founders clearly and/or most likely intended... Quote:
In the dissent by Marshall and Brennan in U.S. v. Salerno (1987)... Quote:
Quote:
For those who have a problem with any regulations, bear in mind that the author is correct that "Some regulations would be constitutional" and that "Perhaps the day will come when the people will determine that the best way to curb gun violence is to cull the Second Amendment from the Constitution." Certainly, such possibilities grate; but, as we've seen in various threads/polls on this site, some regulations would been seen by enough gun owners as 'acceptable' that we're unlikely to stop ALL such legislation. However, as the article indicates, we'd be far better off if SCOTUS would definitively delimit and demarcate SOME boundaries, beyond the unacceptability/unconstitutionality of a total ban. Unfortunately, I'm still a bit dubious that we have yet to achieve the proper 'balance' on the Court to accomplish that. Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 11-19-2018 at 12:37 PM.. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
He did not say that they were "legal" rights, he said that these rights are equal in the eyes of the law, or at least should be, as stated by Justice Thomas, joined by Alito and Gorsuch. (One could argue that the 2A has a greater status than some others, specifically those that have built-in limitations, such as the right to be free from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures as the most obvious example.)
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
In a sense, what he's trying to get at is that there must exist a 'balance' to the enforcement of natural rights as something other than absolute with the limitations found within the legal rights bestowed by Government. This is why he's arguing that a 'new theory' needs to be developed. In other words, in his mind, SCOTUS needs to... Quote:
Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 11-19-2018 at 1:31 PM.. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Good article and to the point. But in reality, who reads the National Review... the choir, so to speak. It is interesting in the credits (emphasis added):
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo James C. Phillips, a non-resident Fellow with the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, recently published a study which concludes that conservatives and libertarian law professors face discrimination from elite, top-tier schools compared to liberal or moderate professors. https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11278 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|