Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 7/11/2001 7:57:49 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 9:10:34 AM EST
OK, here was my response
In Dahlia Lithwick's essay, she accurately reported the current judicial stance on the Second Amendment. She accurately noted that the Supreme Court's one and only statement on that amendment came with the U.S. v. Miller decision. She referenced Sanford Levinson, author of "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" and his counterpart, the Michael Bellisiles (but failed to mention his book "Arming America" has been pretty thoroughly debunked by his fellow historians). Interestingly, she did not mention the legal opinion of Al Gore's election lawyer, Lawrence Tribe, who steadfastly (if uncomfortably) holds with the NRA's position that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. She also curiously fails to mention the current U.S. v. Emerson case currently in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. In a lower Federal Court case, Judge Samuel Cummings declared in his decision that the Second Amendment does, indeed, protect an individual right. His decision, which researches the writings of the Founding Fathers, prior court decisions, and current scholars, is fascinating reading. It's very reminiscent of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, where years of legal precedent were overthrown. It directly addresses the actual meaning of the Miller decision. Cummings' decision was immediately appealed to the 5th Circuit. We're still waiting for the 5th Circuit ruling, even though it's been over a year since the oral arguments were heard. Regardless of the 5th Circuit ruling, the chances are very good that the decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Perhaps then we'll finally learn if we still live in a Constitutional Republic - a nation governed by law, not "political correctness". "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 1803
View Quote
Of course, someone immediately pointed out that Miller wasn't the Court's only decision on the 2nd, but I didn't think that forum was the place to start dragging out [i]Dred Scott, Cruikshank,[/i] and the few others. However, I should have stated it differently. Too bad I can't edit it after the fact.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 9:23:01 AM EST
The editorial is not TERRIBLY bad, except the author TOTALLY BOTCHED the handling of the Miller case. Miller was SPECIFICALLY AND EXCLUSIVELY about sawed off shotguns not being of common military useage, and therefore NOT covered under the Second Amendment. The SCOTUS ruling was EXACTLY correct. In fact, the Miller ruling ACTUALLY supports our postion - that the 2nd is about weapons of common military useage. As the only logical interpreation of the 2nd is for individual useage and owbership, what Miller actually does is to [b]guarantee me the right to own firearms of common military useage - i.e. FULL AUTO.[/b] But then, we can't expect Liberals to think these things thru. They can't digest any political thought thats not spoon fed to them.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 9:24:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 4:09:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By garandman: The editorial is not TERRIBLY bad, except the author TOTALLY BOTCHED the handling of the Miller case. Miller was SPECIFICALLY AND EXCLUSIVELY about sawed off shotguns not being of common military useage, and therefore NOT covered under the Second Amendment. The SCOTUS ruling was EXACTLY correct. In fact, the Miller ruling ACTUALLY supports our postion - that the 2nd is about weapons of common military useage. As the only logical interpreation of the 2nd is for individual useage and owbership, what Miller actually does is to [b]guarantee me the right to own firearms of common military useage - i.e. FULL AUTO.[/b] But then, we can't expect Liberals to think these things thru. They can't digest any political thought thats not spoon fed to them.
View Quote
Break out the Silverware. Now's as good a time as any.
Top Top