Misc. Friday Ramblings...

Johnston Green (Jericho):
What do you want me to say? I get it. The man has a satellite and doesn't want anyone to know. I am about to go to war against New Bern, Kansas. Home of the nearest Costco. Today is already about as weird as I can handle. I'm not asking anymore questions.

  • Supreme Court, here we come....I hope...
    Gun-rights advocates are cautiously optimistic these days, and with good reason. The latest Second Amendment news is that a federal appeals court will not reconsider a panel judgment against the District of Columbia's gun ban. This means that the options facing pro-gun-ban Mayor Adrian Fenty are, at least by his lights, all bad. The District may now either take the case to the Supreme Court or admit that the gun ban is defeated. City officials must decide by the second week of August.

    What a Catch-22 for the gun-control crowd. For reasons clear enough to any Supreme Court-watcher, few gun-controllers want Mr. Fenty to pursue the case there. Assuming that the court agrees to hear it, the current justices are likelier than any group in recent memory to scale back gun-control laws now that conservative Justice Samuel Alito has replaced Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

    Of course, taking it to the SCOTUS is a double-edged sword. If they rule against the ban, there is national precedence to remove similar bans anywhere in the US. However, if ruled for the ban, then that legitimizes the control crowd on a national level, giving federal law a chance to overcome anti-control local legislation.

  • How terrorists get weapons to attack a base in the US?
    They get them from the street and the black market. Wow, go figure. Even the illegal aliens know that they can't get guns legally through the current system. You mean current laws work? Heaven forbid!

  • Law professors starting to see 2nd Amendment as individual right.
    Startled by the recent federal appeals court decision overturning D.C.'s gun ban, The New York Times suddenly notices the impact of scholarship favoring the position that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. It notes that the work of left-liberal legal scholars inclined to favor gun control, beginning with University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson's 1989 Yale Law Journal article "The Embarrassing Second Amendment," has been especially influential. Why, after all, would leading scholars such as Lawrence Tribe reverse themselves and endorse a view of the Constitution at odds with their policy preferences unless the evidence supporting that view was too strong to ignore? Just to be contrary, according to the nicely named Carl T. Bogus, a law professor at Roger Williams University who favors an interpretation of the Second Amendment that renders it null and void. "Contrarian positions get play," he says. "Liberal professors supporting gun control draw yawns."

    The Times reports that these contrarians have "in a remarkably short time upended the conventional understanding of the Second Amendment"—so much so that (as the Times fails to note) the individual-right interpretation is now known as "the standard model." Yet the Times leaves unquestioned this claim by Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence: "The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion supports the near-unanimous view of the federal courts that the constitutional right to be armed is linked to an organized militia. The exceptions attract attention precisely because they are so rare and unexpected." It's not clear how Henigan is weighing scholarly opinion, but the pro-gun-rights scholar Don Kates reports that "over 120 law review articles have addressed the Second Amendment since 1980," and "the overwhelming majority affirm that it guarantees a right of individual gun owners." Furthermore, as the Times also neglects to mention, this was the standard view until 20th-century gun controllers started pushing the claim that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with individual rights.

    Don't they know anything. Only amendements 1 and 3 through 10 were to apply to the individual. Where is a good revisionist when you need them?

No comments: