U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Judge Raymond Kethledge and the Second Amendment
Source:
National Review
URL Source: https://www.nationalreview.com/benc ... edge-and-the-second-amendment/
Published: Jul 6, 2018
Author: Donald Burke
Post Date: 2018-07-07 09:49:34 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 4660
Comments: 53
Perhaps the most important Second Amendment case to come before the Sixth Circuit in the last few years — so important that the court took it en banc — is Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department. The case dealt with a federal statute that barred anyone who had ever been involuntarily committed from owning a gun. Although Clifford Tyler had enjoyed decades of good mental health, the statute barred him from owning a gun because he had been involuntary committed — one time — 28 years earlier. In a divided vote, the court held that Tyler had plausibly alleged that the statute violated his Second Amendment rights. Judge Kethledge went further still. Joining an opinion by Judge Sutton, he concluded that the statute, as applied to Tyler, did violate the Second Amendment because Tyler had not received an individual adjudication before he lost his rights. Kethledge thus eschewed the debate between strict and intermediate scrutiny that occupied most of the court. These so-called tiers of scrutiny require the government to show that statutes infringing on a constitutional right serve an important interest and relate closely to that interest; under strict scrutiny, the interest must be compelling and the statute narrowly tailored. In too many cases, these flexible tests empower judges to substitute their own policy preferences for the law — first by selecting the applicable standard (seemingly at random in many cases) and then by decreeing which governmental interests count as compelling and which do not. Thus, in his dissenting opinion in a case involving the Virginia Military Institute’s all-male admission policy, Antonin Scalia warned that judges’ abstract legal tests can never supersede our “constant and unbroken national traditions.” Judge Kethledge understands that lesson, which is why his position in the Tyler case faithfully applied Justice Scalia’s opinion in Heller. There, the Supreme Court recognized two narrow exceptions to the general rule that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense — for felons and for the mentally ill. Kethledge recognized that, under Heller, the government was required to show that Tyler fell into one of these historically recognized categories before it could strip him of his Second Amendment rights. Specifically, he concluded that the government must not merely argue about interests and tailoring, but provide gun owners like Tyleran individual adjudication as to their mental health. In this way, Judge Kethledge honored the principles set out in Heller and showed that he sided with Justices Thomas and Scalia in concluding that Second Amendment rights must be protected to the full extent of their historical scope. Kethledge’s commitment to the Second Amendment extends beyond the bench. In his public speeches, he has taught students and lawyers about originalism — the methodology that Justice Scalia used in Heller to confirm that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense, not just the militia. According to Judge Kethledge, judges must answer constitutional questions not by consulting their own policy preferences or the evolving consensus in elite law schools, but rather by ascertaining “the meaning that the citizens bound by the law would have ascribed to it at the time it was approved.” That is precisely the approach taken by Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller, which devoted more than 30 pages to analyzing the meaning of the Second Amendment at the time it was adopted. Likewise, in moderating a Federalist Society panel on the Second Amendment, Kethledge suggested — as Justice Thomas has recently — “that the lower courts have not been faithfully applying Heller, as to methodology and also as to sort of the rigor of their scrutiny.” And in response to the misconception that the Second Amendment applies only to muskets and bayonets, he explained that, today, the Second Amendment protects modern weaponry just like “the First Amendment protects the Internet.” In his personal life, Judge Kethledge exemplifies the kind of robust and responsible gun ownership that the Heller Court recognized to be at the core of the Second Amendment since the founding era. Kethledge has hunted in northern Michigan every year for over two decades, usually in the Huron-Manistee National Forest. And when his son, Ray, Jr., came of age, the two Rays started hunting together, just like generations of Americans before them. The same goes for self-defense: In addition to many years owning rifles and shotguns, Judge Kethledge has for over a decade carried a .40 Glock 27 for personal protection (with an active conceal-carry permit). It is thus no surprise that Judge Kethledge has likened hunting to judging — a comparison that may make him unique among federal judges. In a recent speech to the Federalist Society chapter at the University of Michigan law school, Judge Kethledge used his experience hunting for partridge to illustrate his concern that the Chevron doctrine has made courts defer too readily to federal agencies’ interpretations of the law: As one of Judge Kethledge’s former law clerks, it should go without saying that I would be very pleased to see him selected to fill the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy. To be sure, he is one among a number of impeccably well-qualified candidates, each of whom can be expected to discharge that responsibility ably. What is absolutely clear to me is that all Americans would find in Judge Kethledge a justice who is as committed to originalism and textualism as he is to the Second Amendment and the American way of life. Poster Comment: A nice photo of the judge teaching his young son to shoot is at NR. I'll try to link it (from NR's WP.com site), not sure it will work here at LF. Judge Raymond Kethledge vigorously defends — and exercises — individual rights under the Second Amendment. On the bench, he has faithfully applied the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, and ruled that Second Amendment rights deserve at least as much protection as any others. Off the bench, he is an avid hunter and a lecturer on originalism, textualism, and the Second Amendment. Around this time of year I like to hunt for grouse (or partridge, as we call them in Michigan) with my son in the forests Up North. Sometimes the birds are in cedar swamps that are full of alder bushes and dense secondary growth. More than once I’ve decided that, even if the birds are in there, it’s not worth pushing through all those branches to get to them. Interpreting statutes like the Clean Air Act is often similar. The statute presents a dense undergrowth of sections and subsections and subsections within those. The answer to the specific question in the case might lie somewhere in those sections and subsections, but working through them is hard. And meanwhile the agency is there to offer a path already cleared. Down that path might lie a woodcock rather than a partridge, but both are game birds, and the judge might be tempted to conclude that under the circumstances a woodcock is good enough. And so in agency cases it often seems that the court pauses only briefly at step one, without much effort to hack through the undergrowth, before proceeding straightaway down the cleared path of step two. Donald Burke clerked for Judge Raymond Kethledge from 2009 to 2010 and for Justice Antonin Scalia from 2011 to 2012. He practices trial and appellate litigation in Washington, D.C.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)
So The National Review likes Kethledge? Is that an endorsement anyone would want?
And the establishment hacks that are pushing Kavanagh? You think that is a more desirable group to listen to? I don't. Kethledge is hardcore on the Second, just like Scalia. Exactly like Scalia. Except he has had his own CCW and a Glock handgun for self-defense for 10 years. You think Kavanagh is that connected to the Second Amendment? And Kethledge repudiates Scalia's weakness on Chevron deference explicitly, exactly as Gorsuch does. It is a vital area of judicial doctrine that must be addressed, along with the district courts running wild with nationwide injunctions against legitimate executive authority. This former clerk of Scalia's and Kethledge's does have some personal interest in seeing Kethledge elevated because then his resume could read "clerked for two notable Supreme Court justices". I think his emphasis on Kethledge being very strong on the Second and just as strongly against Chevron deference are very persuasive and hit the two most salient reasons why conservatives should want him on the Court.
That doesn't make me feel better. If Scalia is an originalist and pro-gun, why did he support Heller? An individual right? So that means he'd have to impose limits. Which is why he wrote that the Constitution protects weapons that could be carried and were in common use. WHAT?? Where does the second amendment say that? Over even imply it? Just the opposite -- it refers to a militia. Well, there's some circular reasoning for you. Every AR-15 owner I know (and many I don't) would love to have a full-auto switch option on their rifle. You can bet your ass that full-auto AR-15's would be "in common use". But the government bans full auto, so how can they ever BE in common use?
It is clearly implied because the Colonial Militia showed up carrying the rifles and pistols they had at home. More importantly is the writings of the Founding Fathers insisted that citizens have the UNDISPUTED RIGHT to own or possess weapons "suitable for carry by the typical soldier". They did this to make sure no future governments would ban possession of rifles chambered for a military grade caliber. Which also means the typical machine gun carried by every soldier with a pulse today is protected from banning or selling to civilians. Well, there's some circular reasoning for you. Every AR-15 owner I know (and many I don't) would love to have a full-auto switch option on their rifle. Probably,but I'm not one of them. I MUCH prefer hitting what I am shooting at and taking it out with only a bullet or two,and not having to carry a ammo warehouse on my back.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Full-auto is a ridiculous goal. Go get your tax stamp if you want it so damned bad. I know you spent plenty more than the permit fee on your gun, just apply for the permit and establish your trust. I think Kethledge, a CCW guy, could be a vital voice in expanding CCW nationally so CCW permit holders could travel from state to state.
No,it isn't. The typical solder of today carries a rifle with both semi and auto fire capabilities,so the typical citizen of today has a Constitutional RIGHT to also own one,even if they are practically useless for anything but shooting up the countryside.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Your line of argument is foolish. You diminish the Second Amendment as an inherent right to self-defense by individuals, not by bodies of citizens called out for service by the local or federal government. The original militias in this country were those of men carrying guns to protect themselves and enforce order against bandits or robbers or hostile Indians or Brits trying to stir up trouble. They owned their own weapons and were almost entirely volunteers. This establishes the "militia" as a voluntaryist group exercising their right to self-defense by knife/sword/firearm for their own personal defense and for the defense of their communities and their nation. Maybe you need to give what Kethledge is saying about the meaning of the Constitution and fundamental federal laws and what they meant to the people of the era when they were enacted. If the laws are outdated, it is up to Congress, not the Court, to fix them. This sort of thing is the very essence of originalism.
If you can afford the ammo to shoot full-auto regularly, then you can afford the tax stamp. I'll bet even GI doesn't have a personal full-auto weapon. He wouldn't want to diminish his personal horde of reloading supplies. : )
I'm a lot more interested in interstate CCW than I am in full-auto guns for all buyers. If we could get interstate CCW and unlicensed suppressors, those would be far greater victories than some futile quest to give every gun buyer even more lethal capabilities than Stephen Paddock used to shoot up that Las Vegas concert with 851 injured and 58 dead. If you want to sell the idea that we want every gun in America to be a full-auto, good luck with that. You and misterwhite are isolated radicals on this.
Well,since I have zero interest in owning any full-auto weapon that isn't a BAR,MP38/40, or M3 grease gun for historical purposes,I'd have to agree with you on that. Especially since thanks to Clinton ordering remaining stocks still in inventory taken out to sea and dumped in very deer water means there is no way I would ever be able to justify spending enough money to buy a nice example. The days of 400 dollar M3's or 2500 dollar BAR's is OVER and never coming back. I wouldn't have the modern stuff like a Uzi if you gave it to me unless I could sell it right away and put the money to good use. If you want to sell the idea that we want every gun in America to be a full-auto, good luck with that. WHERE have *I* ever stated any such thing? I don't even like the damn things. My preference is for bolt action rifles.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Forget something?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Guns with the hardened quality of those kinds of battle rifles are not cheap. You really don't want to do full-auto with $500 AR-15 Frankenguns. National CCW and permitless suppressors offer a lot more advance in the fight for gun rights than full-auto ever will. I don't think you could get NRA to endorse a goal of universal access to full-auto guns. I don't think that even GOA or JPFO or JBS would go quite that far on full-auto. No one is really suffering a lack of full-auto. There are plenty of them around. Get the $300 tax stamp and stop bitching about it. Back in the Thirties when they passed that $300 permit fee, a dollar was worth at least 10 times as much. So if they had adjusted for inflation, it would be at least a $3,000 fee for a federal full-auto permit today. But they have kept it the same because that is what the law authorizes. And Congress has never revisited it to raise the fee. The $300 was so high that it virtually outlawed legal full-auto back in the Thirties. Only very rich people could afford the permit fee. And that was by design. But since the law authorizes only a $300 permit fee with no provision to increase it due to inflation, today you can get the permit at a price even most working joes can afford if they really want it. If we legalize full-auto, the libs will finally be correct that machine guns are legal for all. All their hysteria over "assault guns" would suddenly be a lot more accurate. And when the first big full-auto massacre occurs, they'll be ready. Universal full-auto is a bad goal for American gunowners.
I'd need a Class 3 FFL and then I'd be allowed to purchase a pre-1968 M-16 for $20,000 vs. $1500 if it were legal and "in common use". "I think Kethledge Kethledge, a CCW guy, could be a vital voice in expanding CCW nationally so CCW permit holders could travel from state to state." I think that will happen with or without him as soon as the states can agree on some minimum standard. Currently, seven states (Maine, Arizona, Kansas, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont and Missouri) do not require a permit to carry a concealed handgun.
What was it, 20,000 primers? 50,000?
I can't afford either. I just want the gun.
Look, Don Quixote, a windmill!
It should be legal to have at least what the police have, if not the military. Meaning the legalization of bayonets, grenade launchers AND full-auto. No one has to buy them. I'm saying they should be legal in keeping with the intent of the second amendment.
A windmill? 20 bucks, Sancho, says I can hit one of the blades at 600 yards.
Even without full-auto?
The second amendment isn't a right. It's a protection of a certain right. It protects the right of militia members to keep and bear militia weapons in order to protect state militias from federal infringement. I agree that individuals have the inherent, fundamental right to self-defense, and that right is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The right to self-defense with a weapon, however, is protected by state constitutions (or not). Each state decides that issue. Now, maybe that's messy and confusing and not "fair". But that's the definition of a republic and what the 10th amendment stands for. The federal government has no power to regulate firearms nor are they given the responsibility of protecting them. The second amendment was added to protect state militias. That's it.
You mean, only able-bodied males between 17 and 45? You diminish the Second Amendment and some vital Court rulings in strange ways.
You're describing the original "posse" -- a group of men conscripted by the sheriff under the authority of posse comitatus. A state militia was well-regulated, had officers appointed by the state, and were under the command of the Governor. "If the laws are outdated, it is up to Congress, not the Court, to fix them." I agree. Which is why the Heller court should have refused to hear the case, given that Mr. Heller was a D.C. resident and had no state constitution protecting his individual right to keep and bear arms. But no. The U.S. Supreme Court just had to weigh in with their awkward and embarrassing opinion.
It is a key, probably a vital, element that the ownership and availability of firearms was just as important for personal defense and defense of property and of neighbors as any obligation to protect the state or federal government. Would you similarly assert that residents of the District have no other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights? Why stop with just the Second? Damn, I am glad no one on the Court (except Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg and her coven) thinks like you do.
I agree. Which is why we do this incrementally -- just like the liberals do. We push for a selector switch -- only on the AR-15's in common use -- that allows a 3-shot burst.
If those are the age limits of militia members, then yes. Any individual under 17 and over 45 not in the militia has their right to keep and bear arms protected by their state constitution.
It's a very marginal goal. Interstate CCW and unlicensed suppressors will do so much more for so many more gunowners than focusing on rapid-fire. But go ahead and wish for it all you want. I don't care that much. And you might be a kook on this subject.
I agree. Which is why most state constitutions read: "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." The second amendment says nothing about self-defense. State constitutions do. Don't ignore that fact.
And if the libs amend their state constitutions to forbid all private firearms possession? Then all those who are not able-bodied males between 17 and 45 must be disarmed, including those militia members who reach their 46th birthday? You're being a real dumbass. Thank God we won't get someone like you on the Court. Ginsberg would have you for lunch, quicker than Souter.
That is the import of Heller. Heller clearly recognizes a larger inherent right to the protection of firearms outside the militia context. But it seems clear you don't understand that decision by Scalia beyond some general idea of its results.
Well, they lack equal representation in the Senate under the 17th Amendment and House of Representatives under Article 1, voting representation in the Electoral College and in the Constitutional amendment process, the right to a republican form of government under Article 4, the right to all powers and privileges under the 9th and 10th amendments, and equal protection under the 14th Amendment. The Bill of Rights protects those whom the Bill of Rights protects, originally only from federal infringement. In reality, the Bill of Rights was always "incorporated" for D.C. residents. It's just that the second amendment never protected an individual right to keep and bear arms. Still doesn't, as far as I'm concerned.
Yawn. By the way, what's your problem with the current law on suppressors? They're legal in almost every state and can be had by paying a $200 transfer tax. Same requirements as an SBR. Given that you're going to pay $600 to $900 for a quality silencer, that's not such a big deal. By the way, if you you're shooting standard supersonic rounds, you can't suppress the sonic crack. If you go with subsonic rounds in an AR-15, you might as well shoot a .22lr rifle.
First, why would they do that and could they get the necessary number of votes? Second, if libs are the majority in a state, why shouldn't they get their way? If you were the majority, wouldn't you expect to get your way? Third, taking away the protection of a right doesn't mean the right is gone. The legislature would still need to write a law making it illegal to own any firearm. Fourth, California and five other states have nothing in their state constitutions protecting the right to keep and bear arms. Never had, as far as I know. Yet their citizens own firearms. So your hypothetical is a bit farfetched. Lastly, we have a republic for a reason. It's easier to control the actions of a state rather than the federal government. Worst case, you can move to another state. After Heller, we now have five unelected and unaccountable justices on the U.S. Supreme Court who will now define "arms", "keep" and "bear" for every U.S. citizen. Maybe you're comfortable with that given the current (and near future) makeup of the court. But as you have pointed out, under Hillary that would have been a 6-3 liberal court (maybe even 7-2 six years from now) -- and how will they vote?
And who would you suggest should be allowed to define those terms? Seriously, Ruth Baader-Meinhoff would have you for lunch. Putty in her hands, the second coming of Souter.
Yes, and that's all well and good for D.C. residents including Mr. Heller. But in order to put that round peg into a square hole, the court had to redefine "arms" to limit them to what a civilian would be expected to have. So the Heller decision contains phrases like "self-defense in the home", weapons that are "in common use" for "lawful purposes", a prohibition of "dangerous and unusual weapons". This opens the door to banning any weapon that doesn't fit these limitations. Let's say I possess a weapon for the express intent of protecting myself against a tyrannical Government. (Some would say that's probably the most important reason for the second amendment.) Now, would you consider my possession to be a "lawful" purpose? Those in government sure as shit wouldn't. So maybe that weapon should be removed from my possession since the "purpose" is "unlawful". That's merely one example of the rulings the court could come up with.
Dollar wise, I don't think the price of the permit is what prevents many from acquiring full auto. I think it is primarily two factors: 1. The dollar cost of the weapons themselves. Since the legislation was passed preventing newly manufactured full auto's, the supply has shrunk, and consequently the price of limited supply has gone up. 2. Many people that can afford it, simply do not want the hassle of the paper work; being on a "registered list "; and last I heard, once on that list, the Feds have the right to come to your home and do an inspection anytime they want! I had a cop friend that thought about getting a Thompson .45 for fun, then changed his mind. He said for fun, it just was not worth the expense and hassle. He said that if the SHTF, there would be plenty full suto's laying around to pick up for free. Made sense.
Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers) AMERICA! Designed by geniuses. Now run by idiots.
The most you'll get out of any Court is assent that you can act in self-defense against government agent(s) that are criminal and pose a danger to you. You have cranky positions on guns. The Court is never going to go in the direction you imagine. It's very unlikely that you need full-auto so you can rebel against a tyranny.
Each state, as they currently do for other aspects of firearm possession -- concealed/open/no carry, legal age to possess, who can't own firearms, places where firearms are forbidden, etc.
I don’t. They are illegal in the state I live. If they were legal, I’d have one
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
That doesn't concern me. What concerns me is some future liberal court saying that my intention to protect myself against a tyrannical government is not a "lawful purpose" and my guns will be confiscated. Or some future liberal court saying that the type of weapons I possess have no other useful purpose than to be used against the government -- which is not a "lawful purpose" and my guns will be confiscated. You say, "Come on. That's silly." Really? Look at the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and their definition of an "assault" weapon: a semi-automatic rifle able to accept detachable magazines and a folding/telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, etc. Just say "black and scary" and be done with it. Stupid little cosmetic features turn an ordinary rifle into some evil "assault" rifle and is consequently BANNED by the federal government. So I wouldn't put it past them to ban a weapon for not having a "lawful purpose".
Comments (41 - 53) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
So The National Review likes Kethledge? Is that an endorsement anyone would want?
#3. To: Tooconservative (#2)
Kethledge is hardcore on the Second, just like Scalia.
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
(Edited)
WHAT?? Where does the second amendment say that? Over even imply it? Just the opposite -- it refers to a militia.
#5. To: misterwhite (#3)
Every AR-15 owner I know (and many I don't) would love to have a full-auto switch option on their rifle. You can bet your ass that full-auto AR-15's would be "in common use".
#6. To: Tooconservative (#5)
Full-auto is a ridiculous goal.
#7. To: misterwhite (#3)
WHAT?? Where does the second amendment say that? Over even imply it? Just the opposite -- it refers to a militia.
#8. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland, sneakypete (#3)
Every AR-15 owner I know (and many I don't) would love to have a full-auto switch option on their rifle.
#9. To: sneakypete (#6)
No,it isn't. The typical solder of today carries a rifle with both semi and auto fire capabilities,so the typical citizen of today has a Constitutional RIGHT to also own one,even if they are practically useless for anything but shooting up the countryside.
#10. To: sneakypete (#4)
(Edited)
#11. To: Tooconservative (#9)
I'm a lot more interested in interstate CCW than I am in full-auto guns for all buyers.
#12. To: misterwhite (#10)
#13. To: sneakypete (#11)
Well,since I have zero interest in owning any full-auto weapon that isn't a BAR,MP38/40, or M3 grease gun for historical purposes,I'd have to agree with you on that.
#14. To: Tooconservative (#5)
Go get your tax stamp if you want it so damned bad
#15. To: Tooconservative (#8)
He wouldn't want to diminish his personal horde of reloading supplies.
#16. To: Tooconservative (#8)
If you can afford the ammo to shoot full-auto regularly, then you can afford the tax stamp.
#17. To: misterwhite (#16)
#18. To: Tooconservative (#9)
If you want to sell the idea that we want every gun in America to be a full-auto, good luck with that.
#19. To: Tooconservative (#17)
Look, Don Quixote, a windmill!
#20. To: misterwhite (#19)
A windmill? 20 bucks, Sancho, says I can hit one of the blades at 600 yards.
#21. To: Tooconservative (#7)
You diminish the Second Amendment as an inherent right to self-defense by individuals, not by bodies of citizens called out for service by the local or federal government.
#22. To: misterwhite (#21)
It protects the right of militia members to keep and bear militia weapons in order to protect state militias from federal infringement.
#23. To: Tooconservative (#7)
The original militias in this country were those of men carrying guns to protect themselves and enforce order against bandits or robbers or hostile Indians or Brits trying to stir up trouble.
#24. To: misterwhite (#23)
You're describing the original "posse" -- a group of men conscripted by the sheriff under the authority of posse comitatus. A state militia was well-regulated, had officers appointed by the state, and were under the command of the Governor.
I agree. Which is why the Heller court should have refused to hear the case, given that Mr. Heller was a D.C. resident and had no state constitution protecting his individual right to keep and bear arms. But no. The U.S. Supreme Court just had to weigh in with their awkward and embarrassing opinion.
#25. To: Tooconservative (#13)
I don't think you could get NRA to endorse a goal of universal access to full-auto guns.
#26. To: Tooconservative (#22)
You mean, only able-bodied males between 17 and 45?
#27. To: misterwhite (#25)
We push for a selector switch -- only on the AR-15's in common use -- that allows a 3-shot burst.
#28. To: Tooconservative (#24)
It is a key, probably a vital, element that the ownership and availability of firearms was just as important for personal defense and defense of property and of neighbors as any obligation to protect the state or federal government.
#29. To: misterwhite (#26)
Any individual under 17 and over 45 not in the militia has their right to keep and bear arms protected by their state constitution.
#30. To: misterwhite (#28)
(Edited)
The second amendment says nothing about self-defense. State constitutions do. Don't ignore that fact.
#31. To: Tooconservative (#24)
Would you similarly assert that residents of the District have no other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights?
#32. To: Tooconservative (#27)
Interstate CCW and unlicensed suppressors
#33. To: Tooconservative (#29)
And if the libs amend their state constitutions to forbid all private firearms possession?
#34. To: misterwhite (#33)
(Edited)
After Heller, we now have five unelected and unaccountable justices on the U.S. Supreme Court who will now define "arms", "keep" and "bear" for every U.S. citizen.
#35. To: Tooconservative (#30)
Heller clearly recognizes a larger inherent right to the protection of firearms outside the militia context.
#36. To: Tooconservative, sneakypete (#13)
" Back in the Thirties when they passed that $300 permit fee, a dollar was worth at least 10 times as much. So if they had adjusted for inflation, it would be at least a $3,000 fee for a federal full-auto permit today. "
#37. To: misterwhite (#35)
(Edited)
Let's say I possess a weapon for the express intent of protecting myself against a tyrannical Government. (Some would say that's probably the most important reason for the second amendment.)
#38. To: Tooconservative (#34)
And who would you suggest should be allowed to define those terms?
#39. To: Tooconservative (#8)
I'll bet even GI doesn't have a personal full-auto weapon. He wouldn't want to diminish his personal horde of reloading supplies. : )
#40. To: Tooconservative (#37)
The most you'll get out of any Court is assent that you can act in self-defense against government agent(s) that are criminal and pose a danger to you.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]