- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I don't need to defend Scalia since I have problems with him not throwing out all federal gun control as violating the 10th
Which has nothing at all to do with the fact that Scalia cites the amicus brief as important to him but then comes to the opposite decision. By your standards that you have discussed on opinions, it is IGNORANT and STUPID and DISHONEST all rendering it as INVALID.
you need to tell us how you can claim that people not in the militia had their 2A rights violated when you also claim that there is no individual right
Did you miss my previous post in which I explained how the COurt should have handled this question? I answered that for you yesterday when you first brought it up.
Scalia could have written an opinion which said nothing about some arbitrary distinction between his silly PREFATORY clause and the OPERANT clause which elevated the second half at the expense of diminishing the first half. That was completely and totally unnecessary. He could have admitted the importance of the militia language and stated clearly that was the purpose of the Amendment in the first place - to have something other than a standing army. He could have then discussed the history of the militia, who was in it and the importance of having a gun in that sort of system. He could have then discussed how both the militia system and the view of guns has changed over the last two centuries and the right evolved with it. And as the right evolved, so did guns evolve. And as both of those evolved, so did the role of government in the nation.
he could have concluded by putting all that together to state that - like it or not... intended or not .... gun ownership has evolved to be considered as an individual right. But as that has evolved so has the other components and they must be considered right along with it. As the original Constitution gives power over the militia, it is obvious that the Founders intended the weapons of the militia to be subject to regulation and control. And while we no longer have the militia because the right has evolved, we must also consider that intent applied to the right today and Congress can pass reasonable regulations over firearms providing the right can be exercised and Congress cannot create an environment where the right cannot be exercised.
The DC law creates an environment where the right to keep and bear arms cannot be exercised and is thus unconstitutional because it focuses on the most popular and widely used gun for home protection - the handgun.
And there you have it. The same party would have won the case. The same law would have been thrown out. And the power of Congress to regulate firearms would have been clearly upheld and clarified.
Last edited: