Who were the real winners in the Heller-McDonald decisions?
Why the special interest groups: both sides can claim victory and keep sending fund raising letters.
Had the Civic right interpretation been upheld, the Second Amendment would be seen as a dead letter and these groups would be seen as irrelevant.
The Second Amendment is supposed to protect us from Standing Armies (read the actual debates). Who does that help? Peace groups?
The "gun rights" crew loses their big argument that they have a "right" to a deadly weapon (unless you are looking at State Constitutions). In fact, they have to shut up and be responsible citizens since they lose this fatuous argument.
The gun ban would be a very serious option: There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972)
Fortunately, the civic right interpretation still lives.
In fact, when I say that putting a loaded firearm to your head will result in serious injury or death in the hopes that you will dispprove me, it is precisely you that I mean.
I'm laughing all the way to the bank since I make my living as a lawyer: and I do quite well at it.
Fortunately, the civic right interpretation still lives.
Laci
Only in your dream world, but then you've never shown yourself to be particularly intelligent.
The civic right interpretation is good & dead. Both Heller & McDonald made sure of that.
The 2nd Amendment is an individual and fundamental right. That is now a matter of settled law. Go cry about it Laci. It makes me happy to see it bother a bigot like yourself.
"The civic right interpretation is good & dead. Both Heller & McDonald made sure of that."
And that will last for as long as the Supreme Court remains balanced like it is. But, watch out if a couple of those old guys die off and the Republicans don't take the country back in time.
Typical Brady wound licking.
ReplyDeleteWho were the real winners in the Heller-McDonald decisions?
ReplyDeleteWhy the special interest groups: both sides can claim victory and keep sending fund raising letters.
Had the Civic right interpretation been upheld, the Second Amendment would be seen as a dead letter and these groups would be seen as irrelevant.
The Second Amendment is supposed to protect us from Standing Armies (read the actual debates). Who does that help? Peace groups?
The "gun rights" crew loses their big argument that they have a "right" to a deadly weapon (unless you are looking at State Constitutions). In fact, they have to shut up and be responsible citizens since they lose this fatuous argument.
The gun ban would be a very serious option:
There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972)
Fortunately, the civic right interpretation still lives.
Laci
"Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972)
ReplyDeleteFortunately, the civic right interpretation still lives."
Laci,
I thought that case was a 4th amendment issue?
How does pulling something unrelated from a footnote dissent allow the collective rights notion to "live" when it was never alive in the first place?
No one but a few liberals ever really believed that nonsense anyway.
FWM, you can believe whatever you wish.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, when I say that putting a loaded firearm to your head will result in serious injury or death in the hopes that you will dispprove me, it is precisely you that I mean.
I'm laughing all the way to the bank since I make my living as a lawyer: and I do quite well at it.
What do you do for a living?
Laci
Oh yeah, FWM, I gave the cite for Douglas's dissent.
ReplyDeleteYou can read it for yourself. I doubt you will understand what Douglas is saying.
Laci
"Oh yeah, FWM, I gave the cite for Douglas's dissent.
ReplyDeleteYou can read it for yourself. I doubt you will understand what Douglas is saying."
Yes, but you didn't note that it was the dissent. You tried to pass it off as if it meant something which it does not. Must be superlawyer tactics.
Anyway, doesn't matter, irrelevant. Individual right. Deal with it.
Fortunately, the civic right interpretation still lives.
ReplyDeleteLaci
Only in your dream world, but then you've never shown yourself to be particularly intelligent.
The civic right interpretation is good & dead. Both Heller & McDonald made sure of that.
The 2nd Amendment is an individual and fundamental right. That is now a matter of settled law. Go cry about it Laci. It makes me happy to see it bother a bigot like yourself.
"The civic right interpretation is good & dead. Both Heller & McDonald made sure of that."
ReplyDeleteAnd that will last for as long as the Supreme Court remains balanced like it is. But, watch out if a couple of those old guys die off and the Republicans don't take the country back in time.