[clue-talk] Heller

[David Rudder]

Jed S. Baer wrote:
> Seriously?
>
> The Constitution was written specifically to take power away from elected
> officials, and to set limits on what laws could be passed. There is no
> judicial "activism" in applying the way it was intended. There was no
> denial of original intent at all, 
1(a) "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause."

Translation: "We know the intent, but since they didn't specifically 
forbid us from ignoring it, so we will".

> as the ruling clearly explained in its
> textual analysis. State constitutions are of no interest, other than
> guaging prevailing attitudes at the time of passage, which the opinion
> noted. 

1(c) "The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing 
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the 
Second Amendment."

Translation: Well, the states say it's okay, and since that jibes with 
our interpretation, we'll use them as the authority,

> Because D.C. is a federal district, not a state, and hence has no
> state constitution, the federal one is the one that applies. As far as
> the "we all know", well I, as well as many legal scholars, know what the
> 2nd Amendment is all about, and is sure as heck doesn't allow the sort of
> gun control the D.C. had implemented. It's just a shame that it took so
> long to get it tossed out.
>
> Just curious, David, as to where you've gotten your opinion of what "we
> all know" is.
>   
I went to school in New Jersey. I never studied the Louisiana 
constitution in high school. In fact, I never read the New Jersey 
constitution in high school. But, we read the US constitution. We've all 
read it. It's part of our basic education. That's the document we all know.

Saying "The US constitution forbids this type of control" is fine, 
though I don't think it really does.

Saying "The Louisiana constitution forbids this kind of control" isn't 
so good, even if it really does.

> The D.C. city council deserved to be trod upon. They should be ejected
> from office, IMHO, for so blatantly violating what is a fundamental human
> right -- that of self preservation.
>   
*shrug* It's happened before. It was for smoking crack with hookers, IIRC.

But, the voters didn't throw these people out. That's how the change of 
elected officials works in this country. You have an election.

> But then I expected you to feel this way about it. :)
>   
Not at all. I'm actually a gun-owner's rights supporter. I'm just 
appalled at the lengths this court will go through to justify their own 
political agendas. As I said in my post, if they'd said "it's not right 
to only allow the chief of police to give temporary licenses", I would 
have been fine with it. It was a dumb law, plain and simple, and there 
has got to be some *good* reason for throwing it out.

But, "but *Georgia* says it's okay!!!" isn't a legal argument.

Also, saying it's unconstitutional because "trigger locks make it 
impossible to defend your home" is a lame argument. I haven't seen a 
study which shows that trigger locks will actually prevent you from 
protecting your home. I have, on the other hand, seen more than a few 
which show that they dramatically reduce the number of accidental 
deaths. Even if they do, the court can say "we can revisit this when 
trigger locks meet a standard for effectiveness", but they didn't.

Can anyone send me a link to a study which proves, or even addresses, 
the court's contention that trigger locks prevent you from protecting 
your home?

> jed
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>