Search results for query: *

Give your money to the Cato institute instead! Cato is a much better alternative to the ACLU, and Robert Levey, who masterminded the whole DC v Heller case works there. Give money to an ally, not the enemy. Here's how ludicrous the ACLU's position is (where books have been substituted for...

Very well said, and welcome here. I'd add one wounded: "The militia is for national defense only" And another dead: "The Second Amendment does not provide for self-defense"

Very well said, and welcome here. I'd add one wounded: "The militia is for national defense only" And another dead: "The Second Amendment does not provide for self-defense"

If not for the Anti-Federalists insisting on a Bill of Rights, there would arguably be none. No Bill of Rights, no 2A, no Heller, and a government unrestricted from taking rights by any constitutional inconveniences. If Anti-Federalists were "radical," count me as glad they were around and...

Super atomic wedgie time.

I think Solo is correct. The "Denver" that created the AWB of is only one part of the metro area that most people think of as Denver. It's actually a pretty small part in terms of area. The suburbs (Lakewood, Arvada, Aurora, etc.) are not affected by the Denver ban or their own bans that I...

As long as we're looking for buried references, how about this one. Scalia says (p 20): Fundamental rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_right#American_Constitutional_Law Scalia calls the right to arms fundamental, a previous supreme court calls the rights fundamental in...

I'm all for a new, spectacular find in the decision, but wasn't it common knowledge that the entire Bill of Rights are enumerated rights? If this is indeed a spectacular footnote, then perhaps Scalia has a great sense of humor, because the case Scalia references in Footnote 27 has it's own...

It is the fundamental purpose of the amendment. Is a state with a tyrannical government a "free state"? If not, then what does "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" imply? In the twentieth century, four times as many people were murdered by their own...

No argument that the Court pulled a lot out of the air or elsewhere in Miller. The "common use" term comes from Miller, though - Scalia et. al. did not make it up. I searched the decision again, Scalia brings up "common use" 4 times, putting it in direct quotes all but once. Each time it's...

I don't think Scalia reinterpreted the "common use" of Miller. It still stands as potentially meaning arms in common use by the military. I don't see how Scalia changed that. Granted, he added some unsettling language about Miller as has been pointed out, but nothing binding that I can see -...

dupe

No doubt that's what it meant, but the 14th amendment generally incorporates most of, but not all of the Bill of Rights to the States. It remains to be decided. For most fundamental rights, it's a slam-dunk, but with the Gang of Four on the SC interpreting the constitution however they see fit...

"The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrants." - James Madison I don't know how I can say it better than that. The founding fathers gave us a great gift in the Constitution, but they by no means expected...

Absolute genius! I can't see anything wrong with your logic. Individual right is an individual right. Should full auto free speech on the airwaves be limited to only those who can afford a hefty tax, e.g, rich people? I am one of those concerned about the 5-4 decision, not for this...

Scalia would be right. In a case that Justices wait their whole careers for, one involving a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights, Stevens made glaring factual errors: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/06/stevens_dissent.php I picture Scalia wanting to haul Stevens in the back room...

It only applies to the Feds...the issue of what states can or can't do has not been decided. Many rights have been "incorporated" to the states by the 14th amendment, which basically means individual rights that can't be denied by the Feds can't be denied by the States either. That's the next...

Here's an analysis of the decision by one of the Heller lawyers. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/constitution-is-big-winner-in-dc-gun-case/

Scalia didn't say licensing was "ok," he effectively said it wasn't part of this case. If Heller hadn't said he was ok with a license, it would have forced the issue. It's now a future court case. All four signed on to both dissents, so they are effectively arguing for and against the...

What makes you say that? Incorporation to the states is one of the next legal battles, but that case is much more murky. Some of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to the States and some have not. It is by no means a given, especially considering this very narrow case was decided by...