Posted on 03/29/2007 12:48:37 PM PDT by neverdem
The same three conditions, and others, prevailed in the Nordyke v. King petition for writ of certiorari, and it was still refused by the US Supreme Court.
On March 22 on the Sean Hannity radio show, he again reiterated his agreement with Parker. He stated that it very well described his view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun, that unreasonable restrictions should be invalidated, and that gun regulations should be decided on a state by state basis.
Okay then.
This:
He stated that it very well described his view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun, that unreasonable restrictions should be invalidated
Is contradicted by THIS:
and that gun regulations should be decided on a state by state basis.
How utterly transparent.
I believe the decision by United States Court of Appeals is correct. I understand the challenges that big cities face from gun violence. But banning people from having handguns in their own homes for self defense is excessive and unconstitutional. It is not a reasonable restriction. It clearly undercuts the Second Amendment, which protects the rights of law abiding individuals to keep and bear arms.
Do my eyes deceive me? Did Rudy just flip-flop/pander?
On March 22 on the Sean Hannity radio show, he again reiterated his agreement with Parker. He stated that it very well described his view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun, that unreasonable restrictions should be invalidated, and that gun regulations should be decided on a state by state basis.
Okay then.
This:
He stated that it very well described his view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun, that unreasonable restrictions should be invalidated
Is contradicted by THIS:
and that gun regulations should be decided on a state by state basis.
How utterly transparent.
Has Mr. Hunter issued a statement on this ruling yet?
They forget to mention that Hunter has a 100% rating from the NRA. But, no one in the media wants to give him any acknowledgment. Its a shame.
First of all, in the 1939 Miller case, the defendant's lawyer didn't even show up. The Feds won by default.
Secondly, the vast majority of Law Reviews on the Second Amendment hold it to be an individual right, sometimes very reluctantly. The only ones that don't were funded by anti-gun benefactors. (If any global warming study funded by "Big Oil" is automatically invalid, than any 2nd Amendment study by "Big Disarmament" should likewise be deemed automatically invalid).
Comprehensive Bibliography Of The Second Amendment In Law Reviews
Thirdly, even Alan Dershowitz reluctantly admits the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals.
LOL, Lefties are always late to the war...
In 1986, there were only 9 states that had "shall issue" laws for concealed-carry permits, and 15 states utterly forbade the practice... the NRA has been putting up a good fight since the 1980's.
In 2006, there were 39 states that were "shall issue" or unrestricted, and only 2 that do not issue concealed carry permits under any circumstances.
(EXPLANATION: "May Issue" laws said that if you apply for a permit, the local authority MIGHT allow you to get the permit... but he was not required to give you one. He also would not have to give any valid reason for the refusal. "Shall issue" laws mean that, unless you have a previous violent felony or a current psychological disorder, the locals MUST issue you the permit. "Unrestricted" means that you can carry concealed without a permit.)
Strange that the US saw a decrease in violent crime rates starting in the late 1980's. Purely a coincidence, I'm sure.
My worst nightmare? The Supremes deciding on RKBA like they did in RvW.
Thanks for the links.
What the Hell does That mean?
Weasel words to infringe?
There's a couple things wrong in this article.
First, everyone who is a RKBA supporter should understand that the NRA was, at best, a bystander in this court case, and at worst, no help and only a hinder to winning this case. This case was won because, as Don Kates was fond of telling me in 1994, the lawyers finally found the right plaintiffs -- people who were law-abiding, and had not been arrested for violation of one or more laws, one of which was a gun ban. Instead, these were people who were being denied their civil liberties.
Second, the blither-blather than somehow, the SCOTUS ruling in Miller was the "last word" on the individual vs. state's rights interpretation of the Second Amendment is false. People should go read Miller, and in so doing, they will find out that the Second Amendment was largely a tangent to the central issue of "was Mr. Miller in violation of the 1934 act when he possessed a sawed-off shotgun?" The court then digressed into whether a sawed-down shotgun was a "militia weapon" and therefore, was there an individual right to own such a weapon?
The SCOTUS has never ruled dead-square-center on the Second Amendment, and it has never been "incorporated" via the Fourteenth into state-level rights for individuals, the way the First, Fourth, etc have been.
The Miller court made no ruling. The case was remanded to the lower court. No one "won" or "lost".
"Secondly, the vast majority of Law Reviews on the Second Amendment hold it to be an individual right"
Which means diddley-squat. The vast majority of lower federal courts and lower federal court decisions hold it to be a collective right. If the U.S. Supreme Court takes this case, what will they consider -- law reviews or lower federal court decisions?
"Thirdly, even Alan Dershowitz reluctantly admits the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals.
He said, "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
I would not conclude, from that statement, that Alan Dershowitz admits the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals. And even if he did, who is Alan Dershowitz? If he said it was a collective right would that mean anything to you?
I KNEW it. I predicted here on FR the day this decision came out that Rudy would use it as an opportunity to recast his position on the Second Amendment, and distance himself from the city-centric views he has previously espoused on this issue.
When that was written, who were "the people"?
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.