Posted on 10/15/2014 6:42:37 AM PDT by WXRGina
Why are you again spamming this thread? Why do you post multiple comments, as if that will make your arguments more valid?
You are wrong.
“Eric Holder” is a TYPE of the very leftists that WILL use this “legal” back door to steal your gun rights with “strict scrutiny.” These people have infiltrated our federal, state and local governments, and they are working like Turks to destroy our natural rights. You don’t seem to understand that.
The right to keep and bear arms is unalienable as it stands in the current Alabama constitution. This amendment declares that it is NOT unalienable and WILL BE subject to restriction. If you can’t read that FACT in the wording of the proposed amendment, then I can’t help you TO SEE.
(...as a metaphor...)
Stupid ping
Except that, in practice, you didn't. Courts were applying tests setting the bar far far lower than "unalienable", and the rulings stuck. In other jurisdictions where RKBA should be a slam-dunk, we're seeing millions of dollars spent over decades just to creep very slowly toward holding "unalienable" on the right. That some restrictions exist on any/all enumerated rights is a longstanding standard at this point, making the "strict scrutiny" the minimum norm (like it or not).
If you're subject to prosecution under some gun control law, you're not going to have application of that law held to the "inalienable" standard; more likely you're going to get hit with "intermediate" or even "public interest" or some such, and will wish the "strict scrutiny" proposition had passed.
I understand your concern. Really. My standard line is "those not persuaded by clear words will not be persuaded by more words." I'd rather the proposition use "inalienable" instead of "strict scrutiny", but you're not going to get that passed by popular vote, nor get it established in court in your lifetime.
If Alan Gura supports it, you'd be wise to follow his lead. He's done more to advance gun rights than anyone of late, understands the law way more than any of us put together, and knows what's possible & the strategy required to get there.
If we can get "strict scrutiny" into law, then we can advance it to "inalienable" when the time is right. Sometimes incrementalism is required, and the "strict scrutiny" step is the biggest you're gonna get.
We DO already have the unalienable right to keep and bear arms. Twisted legaleze scams are what have already shredded the US Constitution to a terrible degree, which is why--as you noted--there are (unconstitutional) restrictions in place.
The wording, as it currently stands in Alabama's constitution, makes the natural right clear, but this proposed amendment opens the door for restrictions.
If we can get "strict scrutiny" into law, then we can advance it to "inalienable" when the time is right. Sometimes incrementalism is required, and the "strict scrutiny" step is the biggest you're gonna get.
If "they" don't follow the AL constitution as it currently stands, then it certainly won't make it better to give them an opening that wasnt' there before. I don't see the incrementalism here as anything other than voting away your natural rights.
Obviously, we disagree on this matter, as I disagree with the brilliant Mr. Gura, the NRA and others who support it.
That comment is not from a grassroots person. That comment was written by an operative who is in on the plot to strip the People of Alabama of their inalienable right to keep and bear arms - and replace that inalienable right with a privilege which is subject to whatever restrictions the government of Alabama later decides to impose.
How do I know the comment is from an operative? Because I have been a lawyer for about 45 years and know every trick in the book!
The existing Alabama Constitution says at Article I, Sec. 26 of The Declaration of Rights: “That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence [sic] of himself and the State.” That wording prohibits the Alabama government from restricting that right in any way. If the Alabama Legislature passed a law restricting the right – say by requiring a license or registration or background checks – then the law would be unconstitutional as in violation of Article I, Sec. 26. And the People of Alabama would be right to refuse to comply. [As many recently did in Connecticut.]
But the proposed amendment expressly permits restrictions on this right. It says so!
So supporters of the proposed amendment have to do some fancy dancing, and confuse people by using terminology which has a distinctive tell-tale meaning to lawyers who know federal court jurisprudence – BUT of which the general public is totally ignorant.
“That comment is not from a grassroots person. That comment was written by an operative”
Oh, now THAT is funny.
You can Google the last 20 years of posts from “ctdonath” and “ctdonath2” on a dozen boards and see I’m as grassroots and right-wing as anyone can get.
“That wording prohibits the Alabama government from restricting that right in any way.”
Try carrying a loaded NFA-registered M2 into a state courthouse gallery and post about how unrestricted that right is.
I didn’t necessarily believe you were an operative (Publius’ thought that just from reading your comments), but the arguments are operative-ish arguments—and certainly the ones used to persuade average Joes to support this amendment.
As for carrying a gun in a courthouse, I didn’t say it was “unrestricted,” even though that is what our constitutions say. I said there are already unconstitutional restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms, and this amendment does not do anything but make it worse by openly allowing restrictions—with “strict scrutiny,” of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.