The excerpt is the second to the last paragraph in the artical. It would seem that no mater which way the court rules, they cannot have the guns.
Indeed. The more talk from lawmakers breaking the law by violating out Constitutional rights, the more private gun acquisitions increase.
“It would seem that no mater (sic) which way the court rules, they cannot have the guns.”
Well, not unless they want another Lexington and Concord, at least.
Merely academic? I don’t think so. There should be no argument on this issue (same for many others) because the Second Amendment is quite clear.
Even a cursory examination of the underlying discussion and debate shows that this notion was particularly espoused so that there could be no mistaking that individuals have the ultimate responsibility for their own safety and protection...protection from crime, and protection from government gone awry.
I find it patently offensive that this argument continues.
You would think it would behoove the court to side with “The People” but time will tell.
Give them up? Come and take them! If you can.
I don’t believe I will see firearms confiscation in my lifetime (almost 40) although I fear more firearms might require registration in the future (.50 calibers for example).
Who would enforce such an action in America? Law enforcement folks I know would not do this nor would the military. I have twenty years in those institutions and that is not the constitution I swore to uphold. I am also a gun owner as is my entire extended family.
I know which side I would be on and I suspect deep down most of “them” know this.
"In support of gun controls like the D.C. ordinance, liberals stress the amendment’s dependent clause to argue that the right to bear arms is limited to those who are or may become part of a state militia. If a state wants to forego raising a militia this way, liberals argue, it can nullify the right."The liberal opinion about the 2nd A. is just more evidence that ignorance of the Constitution and its history is epidemic. Widespread ignorance of the Constitution is also evidenced by the following link.
http://tinyurl.com/npt6tBut the truth about the 2nd A. is that John Bingham, the main author of Sect. 1 of the 14th A., included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes defining personal privileges and immunities that the 14th A. made mandatory for the states to respect. So there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd A. protects the personal right to bear arms from both the feds and the states as much as any other constitutional privilege and immunity helps to protect other personal rights. See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Record.
http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nThe bottom line is that the people need to wise up to politically correct interpretations of the Constitution, particularly where their privileges and immunities are being threatened by special interest factions. The people need to petition lawmakers, judges and justices who are not upholding their oaths to defend the Constitution, demanding that they resign from their jobs.
The issue is larger than guns. The issue is that if the liberals can nit pick at every word in a sentence until the normal meaning of the sentence is no longer universally understood, all of our constitution, laws and even traditions are going to be overturned.
For example, who would have thought that marriage had to be defined? Who thinks that even if we had a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman we would not be debating whether a man and a woman refers to actual physical sexual organs and not some broader meaning?