Comments on: DC Gun Ban Case (Heller) Decided Tomorrow

By: Blacknell.net » Warner & Gilmore: We’ll Screw DC, Too

Blacknell.net » Warner & Gilmore: We’ll Screw DC, Too — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:48:23 +0000

[...] right to self determination on the issue of guns. Gilmore doesn’t appear to understand what Heller is, but goes on about his support for gun ownership and finishes up by saying that he is also [...]

By: MB

MB — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:03:21 +0000

Well, that’s exactly what I said I wasn’t doing - I’m not suggesting that since the purpose of the 2nd Amendment has already been frustrated, that we ought to just disregard any rights under it.

What I *am* saying is that any argument which relies on the idea that an armed population in 2008 is going to keep the gov’t in check is just . . . silly. Might as well finish it of with a “Wolverines!” for good measure.

By: Steve Bierfeldt

Steve Bierfeldt — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:58:09 +0000

I think you may be remiss Mark if you allowed the increased size and scope of the military to overrule the right of the individual gun owner.

Many have made the case that the right refers to the state militia in terms of the military only, and therefore covered adequately by entities such as the National Guard.

As the guard was formed approximately 150 years after the Constitution, let’s not forget that the focus of the second amendment was not only to allow citizens to protect themselves, but to keep the government in line.

Just as the three branches of government serves as a check on each other, all three were meant to be kept in check by a populace continually reminding them that they were formed out of an armed revolution.

Though I suppose we’ll know soon enough where Washington DC and nine of its scholars stand on this matter.

By: MB

MB — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:54:14 +0000

Much as one wonders what they’d have written if they saw today’s firearms.

The primary premise of the Second Amendment, if you take it as defining an individual right, is pretty much rendered moot (in practical terms) by today’s military. That’s not to say that I think the rights aren’t important, then, but it does limit the appeal (I think) of original intent as a justification.

By: Steve Bierfeldt

Steve Bierfeldt — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:48:39 +0000

It will be interesting to read both the majority and minority opinion of the justices in the heller case.

One wonder just what men like Washington and Madison would say if they had been told 200 plus years ago that the government they were creating would one day be ruling on the Constitutionality of firearms.

By: MB

MB — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:57:39 +0000

Some may find it worth going to Scotusblog to check out the discussion of two of today’s decisions. The SC struck down the punitive damages against Exxon-Mobil for the Exxon Valdez spill (kids, ask your parents to tell you about it) as excessive. This will generate some outrage, but it’s a more technical matter than the SC simply deciding that Exxon shouldn’t have to pay so much.

The other - and much more surprising - decision is the one in which the SC struck down a Louisiana law imposing the death penalty in cases of rape (of a child under 13). And while that in itself was surprising, the opinion reportedly issues a new categorical requirement: unless the crime results in death, the death penalty cannot be imposed.