Posted on 03/29/2007 12:48:37 PM PDT by neverdem
It means that even if the 2A is confirmed as an individual right, the individual states have the right to impose infringement as they see fit.
The correct grammar leavess only a single comma.
See, e.g., Commas and the Second Amendment
Sorry, "leavess"==leaves.
Tell it to the marijuana farmers in CA. Tell it to the secessionists in Hawaii. Tell it to the segregationists in dixieland...
Personally, the place I feel safest outside my own home is down at the gun club.
There used to be a post here in the archives with an interview with a grammar expert which parsed the entire Amendment and addressed the "comma" issue. I believe it was by J. Niel Schielman(?). Anybody know where it is? My search comes up dry.
Schielman=Schulman???
Lower courts are bound to precedent - they have little choice in interpretation of the law, most notably when bad precedents have been set and, thru repetition and bad timing, become unavoidable. Even the DC Circuit in _Parker_ observed that they WANTED to issue such a ruling in other cases, but assorted factors prevented from deviating from precedents until plaintiff Heller finally pushed thru.
Scholarly analysis allows the legal freedom to explore and more readily arrive at correct conclusions not previously widely justified. Only the Supreme Court really has the freedom (federally) to abandon bad legal trends wholesale and comprehensively reinterpret law back to what was originally intended.
You know, he may actually be learning. It does happen to people when the course of their lives takes a direction which broadens their horizons. I don't want to sound like a naive Pollyanna, but if we stubbornly refuse to believe anyone can change their minds about gun rights and refuse to believe people when they tell us they have changed their minds, then we're giving up the fight, because if people -- from ordinary voters to major political figures -- don't change their minds in significant numbers, and don't find themselves welcomed into the RKBA community, there's little chance of ever achieving significant progress towards making the Second Amendment the operative law of the land again. Excessive cynicism could cost us that crucial victory.
Rudy has been a creature of New York City all his life, and never had a compelling reason to consider things from a non-NYC point of view. Now he has that compelling reason, and is probably considering a lot of things from new perspectives. Let's encourage him, not discourage him.
I would love to see more Green States crops up... It's the Constitutional thing to do. ;-)
I don't know. It's too conveniently close to an election for him to start contradicting his positions.
Absolutely. Crosspost early and often everywhere.
Best regards,
Ask and ye shall receive:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799609/posts?page=12#12
What if the government, from the smallest police department to the FBI was restricted by the same laws? Hmmmm....something to dream about!
This is why elections matter.
If they go to the full DC Circuit it has been stacked by Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43. Of the 12 one is from Carter and three from Clinton.
If the full court affirms the decision of the 2/1 then SCOTUS may not take the case and the decision will stand.
The Second Ammendment is so NOT about home defense (though it works well) or hunting. It is about 'the people' having, at the ready, a way to overthrow tyrannical government.
Lower crime rates are an ancillary benefit to an armed society. The government's enactment of laws limiting the full effect of the second ammendment causes it to be an accessory to every rape, strong-arm robbery, assualt, carjacking, home-invasion, and murder committed over the last hundred years, and then some. Good luck suing the b*stards or putting them behind bars.
As taxpayers, we should recoil at the cost of housing perps whose careers would have ended long before they became wards of the state-- were they stopped 'dead' in their tracks earlier on, as would have happened in an armed (polite) society.
In short, we've relinquished our right to assert ourselves as a force government must contend with, due to our reluctance to assert our right to "keep and bear arms" in capitulation to the 'majoritarian' view that to do such is politically incorrect (unpopular). I want my country back.
Crime is an issue locally and we have no one else to thank than 'gun-grabbers'. Crime at the state and national level continues to go unchecked. I reject seat-belt, child carrier seat, cell-phone crimes as mere distractions from what are real crimes: failing to implement the constitution and bill of rights as written.
Imagine the 'people' taking to task those who have been entrusted with executing our 'laws' in the same manner as we've been subjected over the years. Power to the Nanny People. Give 'em guns, 'cause the Nanny State sucks and has no intention of backing off any time soon. Let's Roll, Bring It On.
>>> When that was written, who were "the people"?
Written long ago. The "people" are Americans. They may change in make-up over time, but their rights remain the same.
But really, everyone knows what the map will look like. Most cities have far more violent crime, and higher violent crime rates, than suburban and rural areas. There will be a few variations, of course, but the pattern will dominate the map.
Sometimes I wonder if we just might need different sets of rules for urban vs suburban areas. (Recall that America's largest city in 1776 was Philadelphia... at 50,000 people.)
Hmmmmm. When the second amendment was written, who were "the people" mentioned in it? Is there any difference between "A" and "B" below?
A) “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."
B) “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
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.