Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:19 pm
Law Review articles will be very valuable as soon as they start to appear, and find their way to the web.
One problem with these is the abysmal level of education on the 2nd Amendment -- which was a large part of the problem until Heller was affirmed and should change over the next few years and decades.
Books such as American Constitutional Law by Laurence H. Tribe, the near standard for ConLaw classes, have long been devoid of nearly anything on the subject.
Practically all lawyers would misunderstand words such as militia, regulated, and maybe even state in the context of the 2nd Amendment -- they either superimpose modern meanings or whatever they were taught (almost always) incorrectly in law school.
And of the few who had studied Miller, at least half misunderstood what it did, and did not say and/or what it actually ordered. Justice Stevens actually managed to commit factual errors in the minority opinion what would have lowered the grade of a first year law student. Stevens, or at least his clerks, just got the FACTS wrong to the point of incompetence (really.)
It has been entirely common for law professors to parrot the previous generation, what they themselves learned in law school and never again reviewed, until and unless they did a review themselves. At that point it because fairly standard for the law professor to adopt the individual rights position, e.g., Tribe (Harvard), Amar Reed Akhil (Yale), Sanford Levinson (UT), Alan Dershowitz (of OJ fame for those who don't know his expertise in in ConLaw and thus appeals had OJ been convicted -- former ACLU national board member who admits he "hates" guns), William Van Alstyne (Duke), Nelson Lund (George Mason University).
Starting how, all legal scholars and students will be forced, however kicking and screaming, to START from the position that the 2nd Amendment protects an individul right, not predicated on militia service but contextualized by that service. It should not take long for the intellectually honest among them to reach my position and incidated in Heller: At least the firearms of the individual infantryman, (paramilitary) police officer, and ordinary civilian use are protected.
Now it will take time, and the Court could reverse this, but a decision that follows Heller would have to gut the 1934 NFA. The police cannot commonly issue firearms denied to the general public. Nor can the Army and Marines.
I am talking individual weapons, the argument for tanks and rocket launchers is one easily made if forced to use nothing but facts and logic, but that will require either the Court or an amendment to fix and I have no doubt that one or the other will occur.
I love the prima fasci, part (the only thing I elided are the case references):
Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ...and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ...the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Our next President is going to pick 1-4 Supreme Court Justices -- who do we want (of the two actual choices) doing that?
I know it will horrify the Brady bunch and scare the sheeple but quite simply:
The longer I read this decision the more I like it with only minor exceptions, and given what it could realistically have said that is understandable:
Wilmette, IL has already suspended their ban on hand guns in the home.
One problem with these is the abysmal level of education on the 2nd Amendment -- which was a large part of the problem until Heller was affirmed and should change over the next few years and decades.
Books such as American Constitutional Law by Laurence H. Tribe, the near standard for ConLaw classes, have long been devoid of nearly anything on the subject.
Practically all lawyers would misunderstand words such as militia, regulated, and maybe even state in the context of the 2nd Amendment -- they either superimpose modern meanings or whatever they were taught (almost always) incorrectly in law school.
And of the few who had studied Miller, at least half misunderstood what it did, and did not say and/or what it actually ordered. Justice Stevens actually managed to commit factual errors in the minority opinion what would have lowered the grade of a first year law student. Stevens, or at least his clerks, just got the FACTS wrong to the point of incompetence (really.)
It has been entirely common for law professors to parrot the previous generation, what they themselves learned in law school and never again reviewed, until and unless they did a review themselves. At that point it because fairly standard for the law professor to adopt the individual rights position, e.g., Tribe (Harvard), Amar Reed Akhil (Yale), Sanford Levinson (UT), Alan Dershowitz (of OJ fame for those who don't know his expertise in in ConLaw and thus appeals had OJ been convicted -- former ACLU national board member who admits he "hates" guns), William Van Alstyne (Duke), Nelson Lund (George Mason University).
Starting how, all legal scholars and students will be forced, however kicking and screaming, to START from the position that the 2nd Amendment protects an individul right, not predicated on militia service but contextualized by that service. It should not take long for the intellectually honest among them to reach my position and incidated in Heller: At least the firearms of the individual infantryman, (paramilitary) police officer, and ordinary civilian use are protected.
Now it will take time, and the Court could reverse this, but a decision that follows Heller would have to gut the 1934 NFA. The police cannot commonly issue firearms denied to the general public. Nor can the Army and Marines.
I am talking individual weapons, the argument for tanks and rocket launchers is one easily made if forced to use nothing but facts and logic, but that will require either the Court or an amendment to fix and I have no doubt that one or the other will occur.
I love the prima fasci, part (the only thing I elided are the case references):
Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ...and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ...the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Our next President is going to pick 1-4 Supreme Court Justices -- who do we want (of the two actual choices) doing that?
I know it will horrify the Brady bunch and scare the sheeple but quite simply:
- I want my SAW, MP5, M16/M4, and short shotgun -- all bearable arms
- ...I want my CHL recognized in the other 20 (approximately) states -- or the requirement for it dropped completely.
- I want my grand kids to be able to draw a picture of (granddad at the range shooting) a firearm or write a story about a citizen stopping a crime or about a soldier defending American with a firearm, without getting suspended or expelled
The longer I read this decision the more I like it with only minor exceptions, and given what it could realistically have said that is understandable:
- registration seems it might be legal but of course is not addressed in any direct manner.
- sensitive zones -- I don't think a school teacher must give up rights to report for work, nor a(n older) student do so either
Wilmette, IL has already suspended their ban on hand guns in the home.
And you can buy one for $700+ if it has never had a butt stock on it. So anyone that wants one and is rich can have it but if you cannot afford it then you are denied the right.
, but who am I to say..