So Let’s Say Justice Scalia Writes D.C. v. Heller …

You may also like...

59 Responses

  1. Lawrence C Farrell Jr says:

    “”You mean you can’t have … you know, a turkey gun and a duck gun and a .30-06 and a .270 and … different hunting guns for different [purposes]?””

    There’s that 1938 NAZI Waffenwerbshein language again, sheeesh!

    The Seond is NOT about hunting Bambi, and here is a so called Second Stalwart again raising the the Lib’s favorite piece of propaganda, the “hunting” issue.

    I’m disgusted.


    Gun Owners of NJ

  2. ira gunnut says:

    “It was wrong of President Bush to hold Padilla without first stripping him of his citizenship (which he should have done, given Padilla’s treasonous actions).”

    How do you make a determination that he committed “treasonous actions” without a trial beforehand? Oh, I get it, he should’ve been sentenced fist, then have the trial! Christ, what a fascist mentality. Cherry-pick the parts of the Constitution you like, and ignore what you don’t. How moronic.

  3. Kevin Tipton says:

    If this original draft of the 2nd Amendment were ratified we wouldn’t be having this argument:

    “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”

  4. Troll Feeder says:

    in re ira gunnut 8:28:

    No, numbnuts, he would have to be tried first.

    Because he is an American citizen.

    Captured on American soil.

    Which is why I wrote that it was wrong of President Bush to hold him as an enemy combatant.

    The only way it would have been right would have been to make him an non-American. Technically, he would have been in US custody on US soil then, so he would probably have had access to US courts anyway, although it would have been moot since he had already been tried.

    Anyway, had he been tried and convicted for treason, as he should have been, we could and should have just hanged him and been done with it.

    The other guys can rot in Gitmo until their side declares an end to hostilities.

  5. Stephen Goldstein says:

    I don’t understand why there’s a need for “incorporation” to extend the Second Amendment to state and local governments.

    Contrast the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law . . . .” to the Seconds’, “the right of the people. . . .”

    The former does not, on its face, apply to other legislative bodies and so it follows that some complementary device (like the 14th) is needed to apply it more broadly. But the Second does not restrict Congress, it empowers The People.

    Anyway, that’s what I think.

  6. All one has to do is consider the preamble to the Bill of Rights itself:

    “The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

    “Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

    …Amendment II

    DECLARATORY; (Common Defense)

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,”

    RESTRICTIVE; (Self-Defense/Preservation, The First Law of Nature).

    “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

  7. Next, let us consider the PRE-EXISTENT NATURAL RIGHT of the British-American ‘subject’ BEFORE the Constitution. As it was explained by a very knowledgeable and well known authority;

    “The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

    – William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 136, 1765–1769.

    Then, let us give our attention to how the new American Citizen’s Right was dramatically improved AFTER the Constitution;

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government….”

    “….This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty….The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

    “…In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty…”

    – St. George Tucker, U.S. District Court Judge, Blackstone’s Commentaries, (1803).

    The Natural Right has NOTHING to do with the “militia”, other than when joining together for the “common defense”.

  8. Jonesy says:

    Incorporation is a liberal interpretation. Thats the irony of gun rights activists working all this time for conservative, republican court nominees. Conservatives are less likely to incorporate the 2nd than liberals are. And as long as states can ban guns (or other rights), what good is the right then in the first place? Its not “inalienable” if it depends on living in the correct state. Thats what us liberals have been trying to say all along. Now you finally listen when its a right YOU care about.

  9. Goof Ticket says:

    If the ruling removes the community regulation authority, on the actual weapons…then they only need regulate the distribution of ammo, as they do with any zoning issue for any business.

    As a gas station must protect the highly volatile fuel it provides, so must an ammunition dealer, provide such protections to assure that those products are not placing the public in danger.

    I suspect this will open a can of worms, from local zoning issues, to the police using more deadly force actions, if gun sightings, increase.

    Regardless, it should bring greater attention to the Disrict of Columbia’s need for greater autonomy as a state like entity.