2nd Amendment ruling
Jun. 28th, 2008 07:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drewkittyhttp://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
This is the beginning of a huge Constitutional bunfight on the 2nd Amendment. The weakest part of the finding is with respect to handguns. If it interests you, read the opposing opinion CAREFULLY on this point.
I posted this to my LJ to try to cut down on commentary in Chip's LJ.
It's hard to convey the flavor of a word-by-word analysis replete with analysis of then contemporary 18th century texts. I encourage people to give it a read if you have time. It's good Constitutional scholarship that generations of law students will curse (for being made to read it).
As for the NRA, the NRA's membership has consistently directed the board of directors: "Fight all gun regulations! ALL! No compromise! Some politician wants to pass gun laws, make them spend so much money and political effort that they'll wish they hadn't. Then punish them at the next election for trying!"
Ruthlessness in the defense of liberty is no vice. The overwhelming feeling at NRA is that there is only one end to a game which runs "What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable."
Disclaimer: I am an NRA "Liberty" member. That means I get the publications but don't contribute money to their political efforts.
I am in favor of moderate and sensible gun regulations, including background checks for handguns but excluding a database of passed background checks.
At present in California, we have the firearms equivalent of a DMV run by the Sierra Club.
Comments here are welcome.
This is the beginning of a huge Constitutional bunfight on the 2nd Amendment. The weakest part of the finding is with respect to handguns. If it interests you, read the opposing opinion CAREFULLY on this point.
I posted this to my LJ to try to cut down on commentary in Chip's LJ.
It's hard to convey the flavor of a word-by-word analysis replete with analysis of then contemporary 18th century texts. I encourage people to give it a read if you have time. It's good Constitutional scholarship that generations of law students will curse (for being made to read it).
As for the NRA, the NRA's membership has consistently directed the board of directors: "Fight all gun regulations! ALL! No compromise! Some politician wants to pass gun laws, make them spend so much money and political effort that they'll wish they hadn't. Then punish them at the next election for trying!"
Ruthlessness in the defense of liberty is no vice. The overwhelming feeling at NRA is that there is only one end to a game which runs "What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable."
Disclaimer: I am an NRA "Liberty" member. That means I get the publications but don't contribute money to their political efforts.
I am in favor of moderate and sensible gun regulations, including background checks for handguns but excluding a database of passed background checks.
At present in California, we have the firearms equivalent of a DMV run by the Sierra Club.
Comments here are welcome.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Keep the Discussion Going
Date: 2008-06-29 04:16 am (UTC)I personally don't own a gun, since I see no reason for someone like me to have one, but if I did, you can be sure that I would research every applicable law, and take every class available to me so I knew exactly what the hell I was doing when I chose to use it.