Patterico's Pontifications

1/16/2008

JCG and Xrlq on the Brief in the D.C. Gun Ban Case

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:01 am



The other day I argued that the Bush Administration’s brief in the gun rights case was correct, and should not distress Second Amendment supporters. I said: “All rights have some limits. What those limits are is the real question.”

Jan Crawford Greenburg and Xrlq have both weighed in, and their position is very similar to mine. Jan’s post makes the case well. Here’s a sample:

Can we have a reality check, now?

With the Court poised to finally decide whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun—one of the great unresolved questions of constitutional law—let’s not forget that the Bush Administration is arguing, firmly, that the answer should be “YES,” but subject to reasonable restrictions.

That’s a big deal. Before Bush took office, the Justice Department had taken the position that the 2nd Amendment didn’t protect an individual right, but instead was concerned with the state’s interest in a “well regulated militia.” Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft reversed that long-standing position, but always acknowledged that some restrictions and regulations were permissible.

The administration’s brief, filed by Solicitor General Paul Clement (a former Silberman clerk, by the way), is consistent with that approach. It strongly defends the individual rights interpretation, yet says the Constitution allows reasonable limits on gun ownership.

Let’s keep our eye on the ball here. The question in the case—the issue that has split the lower courts, the titanic issue the Court is going to decide—is whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right. Clement’s brief argues, strongly, that it does—and that the DC law may very well be unconstitutional.

Jan goes on to explain that Clement’s position adopting a balancing test may be a good strategic move for those wanting the Court to accept the theory that the Second Amendment creates an individual right:

Don’t think the justices—even conservative justices you think would be inclined to find an individual right exists—aren’t concerned about creating new rights, opening up other avenues of litigation, bogging down the courts in endless disputes about which guns are legal, which restrictions are permissible, which regulations pass muster.

Clement’s brief seems to anticipate that reality, suggesting a more cautious approach than Silberman adopted. And that’s one reason why Clement’s brief, strategically and legally, makes a lot of sense.

It basically recognizes a decision that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right is a full days work for the Court. It urges the justices to take it slow. Don’t map out everything in this one case. Adopt a more nuanced standard. Send the case back to let lower court to sift through the issues and develop the doctrine—instead of having Justice Kennedy do it all at once.

Well, it’s hard to argue with that last part. My only area of disagreement here is that I fully anticipate that Clement’s standard will lead to a flood of cases challenging the constitutionality of gun laws, and the courts will be bogged down. But I think that’s all inevitable given the reality of this case.

Xrlq basically agrees with Jan and me:

[F]rankly, I’m having a hard time getting too worked up over the U.S. Government’s brief on Heller. Yes, I would have preferred to see the Administration call for strict rather than heightened scrutiny. No, I don’t think it makes a tinker’s damn of a difference. DC’s ban would easily be struck down under either test. Rather than worry about that relatively minor detail, worry about the big picture: will the Supreme Court affirm the individual right to bear arms at all? If it does, thank the Bush Administration for appointing a Solicitor General who argued eloquently in favor of it, and for appointing t[w]o of the Justices who helped to make it happen.

That’s right.

35 Responses to “JCG and Xrlq on the Brief in the D.C. Gun Ban Case”

  1. Wow. Y’all have such faith in the notion of “intermediate scrutiny” as a searching inquiry. I really don’t, and will note only as Justice Scalia noted, that intermediate scrutiny is at times less searching than rational basis inquiry, and at times more searching than Strict Scrutiny (as in the VMI case). Clement might as well be wearing a 6″ button on his jacket, “Hey, I’m punting this one to the courts.” This brief is reminiscent of DOJ’s neither-fish-nor-fowl brief in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases. The likely result is a case that is all things to all people, a hodgepodge of praise for some nebulous right to hunt and target shoot one end and some pabulum about how local governments will have tough choices to make that the courts must certainly grant great respect to when the question arises. I wouldn’t get my hopes up, and expect that Anthony Kennedy is going to find a way to uphold DC’s ban, one way or the other. It’s not about the law, it’s about the culture, and high end, silk stocking attorneys who went to prep school and the finest universities and law schools, have likely never lived any place where the rationale behind the second amendment is understood on a practical basis. In short, while concealed carry or at least having a gun in the house for home protection may make a lot of sense in 2/3ds of DC, it probably doesn’t make much sense in Foxhall, Bethesda or Potomac MD. And that’s where the Justices’ Kind of People live, not off MLK Boulevard in Anacostia.

    As for the brief… one wonders when the Administration will stop taking legal advice from the WH Domestic Policy Counsel and start listening to its actual attorneys. A better approach would have been “fundamental individual right, subject to reasonable time, manner, place restrictions.” Y’know, like how we interpret the First Amendment. Though lord knows why you’d ever apply maxims of interpretation to a Constitution, what with its responsibility for protecting the mystical right to define the meaning of life for one’s self… Sorry if I was ranting there. I just get tired of seeing law abiding locals in D.C. get preyed upon by criminals (who will get guns one way or the other) while the ‘leets in Northwest D.C. and the ridiculously safe upscale ‘Burbs prattle on about how we need to get the guns off the street.

    Al Maviva (89d0b6)

  2. A better approach would have been “fundamental individual right, subject to reasonable time, manner, place restrictions.”

    I agree with that. I just don’t think the Administration’s position is that bad.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  3. Hmm, let’s see. Conservatively, thirty-eight states recognize a right to their citizens to be armed anytime, anywhere. Another ten grant them the privilege subject to the discretion of their local constable. Two think that it’s ok only when reducing deer overpopulation. Err, how many states were allowing abortion on demand when Roe v. Wade was decided and how many were not “killing minors” when Roper v. Simmons was decided?

    nk (95162d)

  4. Those liberal eletistts living there in WASHINGTON D.C. think their so privlased they have the right to prevent the citizens from posesing firearms for protection ITS TIME TO BOOT THOSE WEALTHY ARISOCRATS FROM THEIR IVORY TOWERS

    krazy kagu (3e8790)

  5. “Well regulated” can be defined in modern language as “well equipped”, meaning that in order for the citizen militia to be ready at a minutes notice, citizens should have on hand the appropriate weapons of the average infantryman of the age. In 1791, that would have been a musket, 1/4 pound of powder and ball. today that means an M4 carbine, and M9 sidearm at the very least, (although I would prefer the H&K 416 and the USP, but i digress)

    Thatguy (57fa98)

  6. Having read her book and finding her reading of the justices extremely well informed, I have to accept JCG’s read. The goal is to get a meaningful Right accepted as the basis for discussion. Sure, under intermediate scrutiny the 9th Circuit will decide bullets can be banned, but that’s a case for a different day.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  7. I’m with Al Maviva on this one. It would indeed be a big deal to recognize the right to bear arms as an individual right. But determining the level of scrutiny that restrictions on that right must satisfy is equally important. For an outright ban on ownership such as that involved in this case, it probably doesn’t make much difference. In other cases, it will be outcome determinative. If it’s anything less than strict scrutiny, where restrictions must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest, the door will be open to all sorts of shenanigans. Saying that any regulations must be “reasonable” just doesn’t cut it.

    Tim K (7e41e8)

  8. In simple, not legalistic terms, what does “strict scrutiny“, “heightened scrutiny” and this statement “that intermediate scrutiny is at times less searching than rational basis inquiry, and at times more searching than Strict Scrutiny” mean?

    I understand the words but I don’t know what these terms mean to lawyer types. I feel as if I am missing part of the argument for not having the correct vocabulary. Thanks in advance for the help.

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  9. Jay, you would probably get a different response from each attorney as to what these levels of scrutiny mean in practical terms. The definition of strict scrutiny I gave above comes directly from a Supreme Court decision. In practical terms, few governmental restrictions survive strict scrutiny, because the courts focus both on the end to be achieved by the regulation, which must be “compelling,” and the means employed to achieve the end, which must be “narrowly tailored.” By contrast, almost any government restriction will survive “rational basis” scrutiny.

    Tim K (7e41e8)

  10. If the people of Washington, D.C., want different gun laws, or no gun laws, they should elect different officeholders.

    The Heller case shouldn’t even be a Second Amendment issue, since it has nothing at all to do with the continuation or effectiveness of a well regulated state militia.

    Leif Rakur (9defbc)

  11. But the continuation or effectiveness of a well-regulated STATE militia is not the question…

    Since the law does not require or allow a STATE MILITIA, but just a militia….

    Meaning, individuals who will gather for defense in a time of need….

    reff (bff229)

  12. Jay #8,

    As a practical matter, strict scrutiny has been uniformly applied only in free speech cases and for the last thirty years or so death penalty cases. Intermediate or balancing is what the Court uses most of the time and the decisions depend mostly on the Justices’ moods. Rational basis is the exercise of the government’s plenary police power and it just means sane. No more than that. If the legislature determines that it is in the public interest for people to change their underwear everyday subject to a fine if they do not, it would probably pass the rational basis test. (Well, almost.) Rational basis is what gave the residents of DC the gun ban in the first place.

    Leif #10,

    The People are not the people of the individual states. They are all the people of the United States including DC.

    nk (95162d)

  13. an individual right to own a gun—one of the great unresolved questions of constitutional law

    No, actually, it’s been resolved several times, but the Control Freaks go to the press and get it “unresolved” every couple of generations.

    The fact that the Control Freaks can’t simply accept what the founders said about what they wrote and announce their opposition, insteal lying about the intent of the text, proves to me at least their fundamental dishonesty.

    That kind of behavior is annoying in small children, and revolting when it remains uncorrected in adults.

    There is zero doubt about what the founders meant, they stated what they meant loudly and often. Stating that the case is otherwise is a lie.

    It boggles the mind that so many people cannot seem to grasp this simple fact. That the Supreme Court should even consider the issue contentious or unresolved is somewhat insane – if you oppose the second, then agitate for a constitutional amendment repealing it.

    Don’t try to interpret the Second Amendment as a gun ban, or you’ll lose the rest of the Constitution in the linguistic chaos.

    Merovign (4744a2)

  14. “Jan goes on to explain that Clement’s position adopting a balancing test may be a good strategic move for those wanting the Court to accept the theory that the Second Amendment creates an individual right”.

    NOW I get it! I was always under the impression the BOR AFFIRMED preexisting rights. Shows what an unschooled mind can conjure up.

    tmac (5408eb)

  15. Now I want to think about this.
    Were the Ten Amendments to the Constitution added to protect the Government from the people,or were they added to protect the people from the government?
    Hmm, let me think about it,
    Using failed logic to deny certain firearms to honest people could justify banning Corvettes and SUV’s. After all, who needs such a powerful auto or such a deadly one?

    Paul Albers (0c58f4)

  16. In simple, not legalistic terms, what does “strict scrutiny“, “heightened scrutiny” and this statement “that intermediate scrutiny is at times less searching than rational basis inquiry, and at times more searching than Strict Scrutiny” mean?

    It’s kinda tough to explain legalistic stuff in non-legalistic terms, but I’ll try. All laws alleged to violate constitutional rights are challenged under one of three tests: strict scrutiny, heightened (a.k.a. intermediate) scrutiny, and rational basis review. Strict scrutiny, which requires the challenged law to be “narrowly tailored” to a “compelling government interest” is the most exacting – it basically allows the stuff so obvious the government have to be on crack not to do, and that’s about it. Heightened/intermediate scrutiny, by contrast, merely requires the challenged law to be “substantially” related to an “important” government interest – a test that probably allows the military to discriminate by sex, at least for purposes of the draft, but which does not allow military academies like VMI or the Citadel to do the same. Finally, rational basis review merely requires the law to be “rationally” related to a “legitimate” government interest – IOW, it basically requires that the government was not on crack when they passed the law, and that’s about it.

    To illustrate the difference, let’s assume that the Supremes rule for the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, and the only question is which test to apply. Under all three tests, gun banning for gun banning’s sake would not be a legitimate government purpose, let alone an important or compelling one. However, controlling violent crime would be a permissible purpose under any of these tests, as you’d have to be insane to argue that states shouldn’t do that.

    Given that the “purpose” prong of controlling crime will be met under any of the three tests, the main difference between them is whether the law has to be rationally related to it, substantially related, or narrowly tailored. Banning guns outright has some relationship, albeit a loose one, to crime control, so it would likely pass rational basis review, but would fail either heightened or strict scrutiny. Banning guns for all parolees or violent felons (particularly those whose offenses are less than, say, a decade old) would probably pass even under strict scrutiny, as such a ban would be carefully drafted so as to only apply to a select group that is very closely associated with the crimes the ban is intended to prevent. On the other hand, our existing lifetime ban on gun ownership by almost all felons, including most nonviolent ones, is not narrowly tailored, and probably would fail under strict scrutiny. It probably would pass under heightened/intermediate scrutiny, though, as there is indeed a substantial relationship between convicted felons and violent crime, and “substantial” requires only a rough match, not a perfect one, or even the most perfect one Congress could have drafted if they wanted to.

    Xrlq (b65a72)

  17. What limitation is indicated by the term “shall not be infringed”? That little statement is proceeded by the words “the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS”. Only lawyers could question what that means. We armed citizens know what it means. The second amendment was not written to protect our deer hunting rights. It was written to protect the people from government tyrants.

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (43f04c)

  18. What limitation is indicated by the term “shall not be infringed”?

    Probably a lot more than you think. The 1791 definition of “infringe” is along the lines of “destroy,” not “inconvenience in some way, shape or form.”

    Xrlq (b65a72)

  19. Thank you all for clearing up the definitions. I just finished rereading the posts here and on the previous story and can now follow some of the arguments that had been baffling to me. Thanks again for your indulgence.

    I can understand having some restrictions on gun ownership / possession. I can see forbidding a a convicted violent felon from owning a gun. Common sense, right? And I can see having a temporary ban for people with active restraining orders against them. The restraining order should have to be reviewed regularly and if there is no reason to renew the restraining order, there should be no reason to continue the ban.

    The Bush administration just signed a bill, HR2640 an amendment to the Brady Bill, that, among other things, restricts gun ownership for people who have been judged to be a danger to themselves or others. This could be someone coming back from Iraq who is suffering from depression, someone whose spouse makes up a story for the cops because he/she wants leverage in a divorce, etc. There is an appeals process, but…

    There has been a restoration of rights procedure available for many years. It is found in Section 925(c) of the United States Code of Laws. But, Congress has refused to fund the process since 1992. In an attempt to have his rights restored, Thomas Bean submitted an application to have his rights restored. The BATFE returned his application without processing it. Bean then went to court to have his rights restored. The trial court ruled in Bean’s favor. The US government appealed. The appeals court ruled in Bean’s favor. The US government appealed again. The United States Supreme Court ruled against Bean on the grounds that Bean’s application for restoration of rights must first be processed by the BATFE before Bean had a right to resort to the courts. The fact that Congress refused to fund the restoration of rights process and thus denied Bean the opportunity to ever have his application processed did not matter. United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002).

    So we have a law that allows any “lawful authority” to prohibit you from owning a gun but you can’t even appeal the process because Congress has specifically denied funds to process your appeal. Stuff like this makes me think the founders would have wanted everyone armed and the Federal Government restricted. Oh, wait, they did say things along those lines, didn’t they?

    Reading the actual amendment shows that reporting to the government to deny your rights is required but reporting to restore your rights is only encouraged. And there is no definition of what a “lawful authority” is.

    My hope is that the justices will rule that it is an individual right and that it will require the “strict scrutiny” standard as we have moved further into the authoritarian government model than I am comfortable with. I would like to see all gun laws reviewed and most of them abolished. We have a lot of laws but they are only selectively enforced. Have a few laws and enforce them strictly. No reason to make this so complex.

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  20. I agree. That is the flaw in the Clement brief, asking for “heightened” rather than strict scrutiny. The irony is that Judge Silberman may have brought this on by delivering an opinion written such a broadly-worded opinion, which appeared to reach far beyond strict scrutiny into categorical prohibition, rather than a more measured one applying the strict scrutiny standard in the usual fashion.

    Xrlq (b65a72)

  21. One of he things I, as a layperson, have done is to actually read the appeals court decision, arguments, and many of the amici briefs.

    They can be found at http://dcguncase.com/blog/case filings.

    After having done so, there is no doubt in my mind that the antis are the ones ingesting prohibited substances.

    For example, the amici filed by Linguistic Professors could be the basis for an SNL skit, except that it is too silly.

    The States and Cities Anti-Rights amici brief seems to say the 2nd Amendment means what it says, except that it has never meant what it says. Only a room full of sociologists on drugs could be that dense.

    Continuing the fiction that “reasonable” restrictions are somehow good for us, does not seem reasonable when the goal posts are moved so easily. More rules, ordinances, or statutes (or tax dollars) chasing bad public policy only puts lipstick on the pig.

    The felony exception was understood when the amendment was written. The right to self protection by means of arms was, as I understand it, one of the three pillars of free men (and women) contemporary commentators spoke of. Property rights and castle doctrine being the other two.

    Fewer guns=less crime has no basis in scholarly work that I see in the papers. One brief, The Brandeis Brief, addresses statistically the opposite: More guns=less crime.

    Cases cited by the antis in support of reversal actually seem to support an individual rights interpretation, i.e. Miller, Emerson and others. But, I still have to read them more thoroughly to be confident of that assertion.

    By the way, thanks to all for trying to explain in lay terms the strict, intermediate, reasonable review standards.

    With regard to the tactics and strategy of presenting a desirable (to me) outcome, I haven’t a clue.

    I think I understand the concepts, even if I do not use the accepted legal terms. Frightening eh? Do I qualify as an example of,”…a little learning is a dan…?”

    Never mind.

    Best wishes to all.

    GaleH (710dbc)

  22. Oops. I meant to say rational basis. But you knew that didn’t you?

    Thanks again.

    GaleH (710dbc)

  23. ————————————————————–
    That was all was too much for the lawyer representing the people challenging the ban, who told the Washington Post’s Bob Barnes that the administration “is basically siding with the District of Columbia.”

    Ok. Can we have a reality check, now?
    ————————————————————–

    Yes let’s have a reality check. On one side we have the opinion of a journalist for ABC News, a network with a notorius anti-gun bias which has cheerleaded the anti-gun crusade for the last twenty years. On the other side the lawyers who almost single handedly are on the verge of reinvigorating the 2nd Amendment. I trust the legal judgement of effective lawyers a lot more than that of an ABC journalist.

    I’m not saying Jan is biased the way that ABC is, I just say that her opinion is based on a shallow understanding of the specific subject of gun-control and the 2nd Amendment.

    Unlike the U.S. 2nd Amendment, many states have clear right-to-keep-and-bear-arms provisions in their respective constitutions which do not suffer from confusion over muddy wording or confusion about State vs Federal powers. Despite this clarity, legal games similar to the scheme put forward by Solictor General Clement have been used in some states to effectively destroy state constitution protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

    For example when the Denver “assault weapon” ban was challenged for violating the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Supreme Court essentially nullified the constitution rather than strike down the the ban. The Court’s rationalization was something to the effect that so long as some kind of gun could still be possessed, then bans, such as the Denver “assault weapon” ban, did not violate the Colorado Constitution protection of RKBA. Now the same kind of gamesmanship is trying to be employed at the Federal level which would leave a similar result, a potemkin RKBA.

    The lawyers fighting against the D.C. handgun ban have fought too long and too carefully to let the rug get pulled out from under them at the last moment!

    Brad (572819)

  24. Too bad these liberal eletistst in WASHINGTON D.C.(DISTRICT of CRINIMALS)think were living in a monarcy where they can do as the please and prevent the citizens from owning guns well then they should just go take a hike we dont need them running our country

    krazy kagu (7c8404)

  25. Brad’s point about state court judges’ misconstruing even clearer statements of the right to bear arms is well taken. Even the “strict scrutiny” standard of review under the First Amendment hasn’t prevented the Supreme Court from approving improper restrictions on speech, such as its approval of campaign finance limits in Buckley v. Valeo. If the standard of review for restrictions on the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is anything less than strict scrutiny, there is no hope at all of preventing improper infringements on that right.

    Tim K (7e41e8)

  26. The campaign finance laws are one area where I give the Supreme Court credit for judicial restraint and due deference to the democratic process. Let’s not forget that they were passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President, and can be changed if the electorate can bring itself to change its Congress and President. I wish our black-robed permanent Constitutional Convention would behave the same way in every case.

    I have touched upon this before, but the contempt for the Supreme Court I sense from lower court judges who consider themselves bound by the law and resent the Supreme Court’s “the law is what we say it is” practice is very palpable.

    nk (95162d)

  27. I don’t want to sidetrack this discussion into a debate about campaign finance “reform” acts. I do want to make the general point that failing to strike down an unconstitutional act is not an instance of admirable judicial restraint; it is a failure by the Court to do its fundamental task in our system of government. Whether the laws involved in Buckley v. Valeo and the more recent McCain-Feingold Act were unconstitutional infringements on the First Amendment is a topic for another day.

    Tim K (7e41e8)

  28. It was not my intention to go there either, Tim. If I had a point it is that the Supreme Court is the final word but not the only word, and the Congress and the President have just as great a duty to respect the Constitution, and likewise the electorate should not complain too loudly if it elects a government that behaves unconstitutionally.

    nk (95162d)

  29. “likewise the electorate should not complain too loudly if it elects a government that behaves unconstitutionally.”

    Oh, I don’t know about this. We can only elect people who run and then you have to take their word for what their intentions are. I voter for Bush based on the oft repeated statement “We gotta enforce our borders!”. We all know how that turned out. I propose a law that makes a false campaign promise the same a lying to a Grand Jury. An impeachable offense. [/only half-joking]

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  30. I think failure to enforce our borders could be punished as treason. It would not even need an act of Congress. The President’s duty to defend America is already in Article II of the Constitution. (Only half joking.)

    nk (95162d)

  31. The U.S. CONSTITUTION is streight and plain THE RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and if those political hacks cant understand that then they should all step down and leave office

    krazy kagu (956b5b)

  32. I don’t think Patterico (our kind host), Ms. Greenburg, or Xrlq quite get it.

    Ms. Greenburg says

    Clement’s brief argues, strongly, that it does—and that the DC law may very well be unconstitutional.

    That implies it might NOT be unconstitutional. Really? You have got to be kidding. She just does not get it.

    Xrlq says

    Don’t think the justices—even conservative justices you think would be inclined to find an individual right exists—aren’t concerned about creating new rights, opening up other avenues of litigation, bogging down the courts in endless disputes about which guns are legal, which restrictions are permissible, which regulations pass muster.

    Really? Creating new rights, huh? Unlike the ones we bloody well know we have that the (swearword) courts have refused to recognize all these years? You know, the same courts now bogged down in prosecutions of those who have no business being prosecuted (hyperbole on the number of cases here, but one is too many) for most “gun crimes” BECAUSE IT’S A RIGHT!

    Tim K. nails the problem:

    If it’s anything less than strict scrutiny, where restrictions must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest, the door will be open to all sorts of shenanigans.

    As Kevin Murphy also points out, taking th intermediate approach allows room for a court to maybe outlaw the ammo. Years more of justice denied before getting that straightened out. No thank you!

    We must have STRICT SCRUTINY! That is the correct standard to use for those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Anything less allows the continuation of injustices already too long tolerated. Xrlq’s excellent explanation of Strict Scrutiny (in #16) and what it means in this case is exactly the right answer.

    Ranten N. Raven (240170)

  33. re: Leif Rakur (in #10). The militia is defined in US Code Title 10, section 311

    Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are –
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    Section 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations, basically extends the age limit to 64 for “a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps.”

    SO — There is a “well regulated militia” (“well equipped and trained” is how we’d say it now) tie in to damened near all non-felons.

    (sarcasm) And hey–if your town decides to outlaw your church or says you don’t have freedom of speech anymore, just elect new ones. No big deal, eh? (/sarcasm) I hope you get that — we see this as a fundamental right. We’ve been chafing under courts that have said it’s not a right. It’s damned irritating!

    Ranten N. Raven (240170)

  34. “The second amendment was not written to protect our deer hunting rights. It was written to protect the people from government tyrants.”

    To Zelsdorf Ragshaft III and anyone else who believes that any Justice would rule for the “Strict Scrutiny” test of gun-control laws: Why would ANY Justice, much less 5 of 9, give his/her blessing to something that is a direct threat to their power?

    As far as Heller goes, maybe we should look for any argument that involves the DC Home Rule acts, and what Congress allows DC to do.

    Brad S (f4a3ad)

  35. ” I propose a law that makes a false campaign promise the same a lying to a Grand Jury. An impeachable offense. [/only half-joking]”

    I don’t care if you are half-joking, that proposal would be “chilling speech” on a Stasi-like scale. Would you trust the government (or anyone else) maintain standards for “truth?”

    Brad S (f4a3ad)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0762 secs.