Replies

Interestingly, the Solicitor General's brief filed in the Court increases the chances that it will take the case, even though it urges the Court NOT to accept the case.

That was also my impression. The Justice Department has to at least nominally act like they are defending the statute in question, so that the case has two sides. But the overwhelmingly important facet of the Solicitor General's brief is that he concedes the assertion that the plaintiff in general has a 2nd Amendment individual Constitutional right to keep and bear arms (the Washington Post is very upset about this). So if the Supreme Court takes the case, both of the principals in the matter are agreeing on that issue.

It used to be that the anti-gunners would taunt the NRA and other pro-gun groups for being unwilling to push a 2nd Amendment challenge of any gun-control law all the way to the Supreme Court, for fear of the outcome. And that was true. Now the anti-gunners are terrified that the Supreme Court might take the Emerson case, and in so doing validate the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. That sort of says it all.

Yes, yes, but there are some liberal professors such as Laurence Tribe and Sanford Levinson who while conceding that the individual interpretation is indeed correct, quickly add that does not mean ipso facto that reasonable restrictions cannot be applied in certain defined circumstances.

The definitions, however, of these circumstances may be variously interpreted, and therein forever lies the rub. Then it's back to no right is totally absolute, that e.g., re 1st amendment, laws are created and penalties can be imposed for yelling "Fire!" as a joke in a crowded theater, for slander, etc...

The tug of war will continue on and on (that's life!), although it would be refreshing to fight from high ground for a change.

The Washington Post linked article blew me away. Other than the rant, they actually quoted the 2nd ammendment correctly as written:

Historically, the Justice Department has adopted a narrow reading of the Constitution's Second Amendment, which states that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This is the way it was written, and approved by the states.

When you read copies of the constitution, they read:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Some idiot a long time ago, without approval by anyone, inserted the extra two commas during publication, and half the battle (at least) since has been because of them. English major Freepers, please help me out. Plese explain (better than I can) the difference between the two sentences.

Grammer impaired, I humbly await....