Senator Feinstein has decided that the Second Amendment should take a back seat to the Preamble to the Constitution. Never mind the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the clause "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments." (Jacobson v. Massachusetts)
So now she is laughingly framing her anti-gun argument as personal pleasure vs. the general welfare. Apparently, she doesn't see a reason to own firearms except for the entertainment value. Personal protection is such an alien concept to her that it doesn't even cross her mind. Maybe she should watch this video of a citizen using an AR-15 to defend the lives of others in Detroit.
Showing posts with label Gun Ban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun Ban. Show all posts
Monday, February 25, 2013
Thursday, July 3, 2008
The Heller Ruling
I thought an appropriate first blog would be something that not only effected the citizens of West Virginia, but all American citizens as well. On June 26th, 2008 history was made: SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment was indeed an individual right (which 73% of Americans already knew). It was disappointing that it was only a 5-4 decision against the District of Columbia's draconian gun ban, but it was very reassuring that all nine justices, even those in dissent, recognized that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual, not collective, right to bear arms. No longer can the argument be made that the Second Amendment only applies to the National Guard (which is not a true militia anyway - at least not the type meant by the authors of the Constitution).
The majority opinion also noted several other positive rulings. The first is that the government cannot ban an "entire class" of arms. This should end Chicago's handgun ban when it is challenged in the courts. There is also a likelihood that a ban on so-called 'assault weapons' would no longer pass muster. Some have even suggested this ruling negates the GCA of 1986 that no longer allows registering of select-fire weapons which have been manufactured since it was signed into law. It appears the GCA of 1936 will remain intact though since it is a tax - though requiring the local law enforcement to make an arbitrary decision on whether to sign-off on a Class III firearm could probably be challenged successfully. State prohibitions on Class III weapons may be vulnerable to repeal as well, as well as the .50 cal bans that exist in several states.
Second, while the ruling allows for some forms of licensing and registration, the process cannot be arbitrary. In other words, there must be plain, reasonable requirements spelled out for the licensing procedure, and those that meet the requirements must be issued a license. This most likely dooms a number of the gun control measures in places like NYC.
Third, the majority also recognized that the right can be restricted, but they didn't expand upon the restrictions that are already in place. For instance, they agreed that those adjudicated as mentally ill and convicted felons may be excluded from firearm ownership, and that government buildings, such as court houses or your local FBI field office, can forbid weapons on their premises.
Finally, one of the most legally relevant, and widely overlooked, parts of the this decision is pointed out by Alan Korwin over at the Buckeye Firearms Association:
The majority opinion also noted several other positive rulings. The first is that the government cannot ban an "entire class" of arms. This should end Chicago's handgun ban when it is challenged in the courts. There is also a likelihood that a ban on so-called 'assault weapons' would no longer pass muster. Some have even suggested this ruling negates the GCA of 1986 that no longer allows registering of select-fire weapons which have been manufactured since it was signed into law. It appears the GCA of 1936 will remain intact though since it is a tax - though requiring the local law enforcement to make an arbitrary decision on whether to sign-off on a Class III firearm could probably be challenged successfully. State prohibitions on Class III weapons may be vulnerable to repeal as well, as well as the .50 cal bans that exist in several states.
Second, while the ruling allows for some forms of licensing and registration, the process cannot be arbitrary. In other words, there must be plain, reasonable requirements spelled out for the licensing procedure, and those that meet the requirements must be issued a license. This most likely dooms a number of the gun control measures in places like NYC.
Third, the majority also recognized that the right can be restricted, but they didn't expand upon the restrictions that are already in place. For instance, they agreed that those adjudicated as mentally ill and convicted felons may be excluded from firearm ownership, and that government buildings, such as court houses or your local FBI field office, can forbid weapons on their premises.
Finally, one of the most legally relevant, and widely overlooked, parts of the this decision is pointed out by Alan Korwin over at the Buckeye Firearms Association:
The core issue of "judicial scrutiny" is now established -- better than we had dreamed -- in what will be known as Famous Footnote #27 (p56). Laws impinging on the Second Amendment can receive no lower level of review than any other "specific enumerated right" such as free speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy or the right to counsel (the Court's list of examples).Law suits were filed in San Francisco, Chicago, and several Chicago suburbs within hours of the decision. Now only time will tell how many of these unconstitutional restrictions on law-abiding citizens will be overturned.
**See the complete ruling here**
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
