Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

A good overview of the dissent in Heller.
1 posted on 06/29/2009 4:55:03 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: marktwain
Stevens used the Miller ruling that the Second Amendment did not apply to a specific short-barreled shotgun to mean that the general Right was reserved for the militia.

Of course, the Miller court made no such ruling. They decided that they could not make a ruling one way or another about the short-barrel shotgun without further evidentiary hearings which never took place.

2 posted on 06/29/2009 5:05:18 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain

Stevens argument is long and circuitous, because it would never occur to him that self-defense is an inalienable right. I believe that this was so obvious to the Founders, that they neglected to set it down on paper.


3 posted on 06/29/2009 5:29:21 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (Is /sarc really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain
Given the overwhelmingly target-rich environment here, I'll keep this short by cherry picking some low hanging fruit:

1) Given Steven's and Breyer's position vis a vis the military use for arms, I trust we can count on them to fully support the home storage of machine guns for all members of the militia, and further more to support the marksmenship training (or regulation) for those people. As a retired member of the organized militia and a current member of the unorganized militia, I thank them.

2) Justice Breyer supports the intent "to reduce the potentiality for gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths from occurring within the District of Columbia."

Uh, what's the phrase you learned in law school, the Mr. Justice? "Assumes facts not in evidence"?

Finally, it's too bad the positions these liberals put forth aren't required to be internally consistent. About 2/3 of the arguments they put forth can be refuted by other opinions they themselves make within their own dissenting opinions. Sheesh.

4 posted on 06/29/2009 5:48:27 AM PDT by LTCJ (God Save the Constitution - Tar & Feathers, The New Look for Summer '09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ..
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
11 posted on 06/30/2009 6:27:57 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain
I wonder if he'd feel the same way if Congress decided that articles criticizing them could not be published because they were hurting their credibility?

I would assume so. A statist tyrant is a statist tyrant. (Of course published criticism of George Bush is different. Somehow. That's Constitutionally protected speech.)

12 posted on 06/30/2009 6:49:28 AM PDT by Still Thinking (If ignorance is bliss, liberals must be ecstatic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain
...any measure less restrictive in respect to the use of handguns for self-defense will, to that same extent, prove less effective in preventing the use of handguns for illicit purposes.

That's absurd. He must think all the guys who use guns for "illicit purposes" scrupulously check the laws and would obey this one as opposed to all the others. Any law will have almost no effect on the behavior of the criminal class, except possibly to embolden them, whereas the spectrum of restrictive laws would have a whole range of impact on the feasibility of gun ownership for self defense.

13 posted on 06/30/2009 6:55:10 AM PDT by Still Thinking (If ignorance is bliss, liberals must be ecstatic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson