Virginia AG supports individual rights in Heller v. DC

[brickeyee]

"To "reinvent/refashion/reconstruct" is to change what is already the 2A, as written. All the SCOTUS can do is "define" what is written. "

And who decided that os what "reinvent/refashion/reconstruct"
means?

I would call returning to the original intent a pretty big change at this point.

The 'collective right' theme has held sway in a number of circuits, so clarifying what the amendment means at this point could be a major change that would amount to "reinvent/refashion/reconstruct."

 

[hugh damright]

DC essentially is the Federal government. While the city council does have its own elections, jurisdiction therein ultimately rests in the hands of Congress.

DC is not the federal government i.e. the DC local government cannot pass national laws. Congress does have jurisdiction over DC, and they considered legislation to strike down the DC gun laws and the legislation failed. When legislation fails, and we turn to the SCOTUS to make it happen, that seems to imply "legislation from the bench".

One of the arguments the District is making is that Congress can, by way of its proxy government, ban any and every firearm not in the hands of an official State militia (i.e., the National Guard). In addition to this, they argue for direct Federal control by saying "[The Framers] could not have intended the Second Amendment to prevent Congress from establishing such gun-control measures as it deemed necessary to protect itself."

I don't recall anyone arguing that Congress can ban guns or anything of that nature.

As such, this case would have State-level implications whether or not Virginia got involved. Were the District's arguments to be taken at face value, and left to stand unopposed, we could be left with a "sophisticated collective rights" ruling giving Congress the power to pass even more national bans.

I don't think so ... DC is not arguing that Congress has power to ban guns.

Given the "necessary to protect itself" language in the District's brief, such a ruling could very well give Congress justification for a nationwide ban on ownership of bolt-action rifles to "protect itself" from another would-be Lee Harvey Oswald or what have you.

I completely disagree. The laws in question are not federal laws.

However, one view of incorporation/reconstruction is to level the governments such that all governments are equally bound by the USBOR. If Heller results in the Second Amendment binding all governments, and binding them equally, then either all governments will be powerless as the feds were intended to be (not going to happen), or else the federal government will assume gun control powers such as the States were intended to have. So it seems to me that the threat to Virginia comes from the reconstruction/incorporation of the Second Amendment.

And who decided what "reinvent/refashion/reconstruct"
means?

The original intent was to bind the US, and the desire to make the Second Amendment bind all governments is a desire to reinvent/refashion/reconstruct.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Kaine plans to push legislators to require private gun sellers to check buyers' criminal records, as licensed gun dealers are already required to do

OOh! Do I get to call the FBI myself? If I have to pay for a dealer to do a check, isn't that an unlawful violation of commerce?

 

[Robert Hairless]

So it seems to me that the threat to Virginia comes from the reconstruction/incorporation of the Second Amendment.

Your concern for the gun rights of Virginians is obviously sincere. Have you communicated it to the House of Burgesses yet? They seem to be the most likely legislative body to preserve the rights of Virginians as opposed to those of all the colonies.

Perhaps the King could be petitioned to imprison the Attorney General for interfering with the efforts of the Royal Governor, Kaine. Your argument is persuasive, that the Attorney General harms Virginians by supporting an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. He either should attack that interpretation or stand aside and allow governments to proceed as they wish.

 

[hugh damright]

Perhaps the King could be petitioned to imprison the Attorney General for interfering with the efforts of the Royal Governor, Kaine.

We seem to somehow be confusing federalism with monarchy. With federalism, Virginians determine our laws, and unless they interfere with some federal power, Virginians are the sovereign or ultimate authority. In contrast, with monarchy, Virginians determine our laws, and then some all mighty King steps in and strikes them down if he feels like it. It kind of seems like you are trying to paint my belief in federalism as some archaic belief in monarchy.

But if you don't believe in federalism, if you don't believe in free States and securing their sovereignty i.e. if you don't believe in the real Second Amendment, then maybe YOU should petition the royal court and beg them to redefine the Second Amendment to regard shooting burglars!