[clue-talk] Heller

[dennisjperkins at comcast.net]

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: David Rudder <david.rudder at reliableresponse.net>
> 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
> >   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk

I haven't checked, but the Federalist papers might talk about this amendment.  They're not a legal document, but they do express the intent of the founders.