Knuckle Dragger
Active Member
- May 7, 2012
- 213
It's not like there was any other choice at this point. Enjoy. Complaint
He basically used the same idiotic "reasoning" as every other judge post Heller. Said that the legislature has full discretion to decide what to ban. The judges apply a level of scrutiny to the 2nd Amendment that they don't apply to any other Constitutional right. It's bad faith. There's nothing more to it.
the worst part is where he says
Ar15 and its large cap magazines (he didn't say clip 2 points) were not in the original meaning of the 2nd amendment.
******** , will he say that the Internet was not the original intent of the 1st amendment
I just said a prayer for Ginsburg to get a fast moving brain tumor. We need this more than ever to save America.
There is no guarantee a republican appointee would be better. Judges are elitists, and tend to dismiss the idea that citizens should be as well armed as the govt.
Bingo. SCOTUS is part of the tyranny - and we expect them to preserve the means to overthrow them?There is no guarantee a republican appointee would be better. Judges are elitists, and tend to dismiss the idea that citizens should be as well armed as the govt.
The judge quoted Feinstein butchering Scalia’s opinion in Heller, not the decision itself. From Heller:
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
At the bottom of page 27 of the decision:
"Weapons that are most useful in military service, as Justice Scalia later observed, fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment and may be banned."
Can someone please direct me to a source for this claim? I understood the Miller decision and Scalia's reasoning in Heller to make the opposite point, i.e. that the right applies to those weapons used by the militia (you and me) aka those weapons in common use for lawful purposes.
Am I confused?
I thought miller said short barred (sawed off) shotguns could be banned BECAUSE they were not used by the military (militia). So I guess now if the military CAN use them the civilians can't?