March 19, 2007


Dangerous Ruling (Washington Post, March 10, 2007)

While the ruling caught observers off guard, it was not completely unexpected, given the unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rife Association and abetted by the Bush administration, to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights.

And so the goose meets the gander...

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 19, 2007 10:54 AM

So, the WaPo doesn't know American history, eh?

Posted by: Sandy P at March 19, 2007 11:38 AM

The spittle was flying so hard the misspelling of "rifle" made it through the editing process?


Posted by: kevin whited at March 19, 2007 12:08 PM

No, it's not a misspelling. It's "rife" as in "rife with danger!!"

Posted by: Mike Morley at March 19, 2007 12:25 PM

As we take in the smell of napalm in the morning, there are two things to bring up.

First, the prior law was never what the link said it had been. Before Cruikshank, the KuKlusKlan restoration case, the 2A RKBA had been held to be an individual right, incorporated by the 14th Amendment. Freedmen had been defending themselves against the Klan with guns and restoration legislatures moved to take guns away from Blacks. The Cruikshank court held, inter alia,that the 2d Amendment was not incorporated. When the DC case is read in its entirety, note that the dissent, the gun-grabbing side, had the timerity to cite to Cruikshank.

The Miller case dealt with a sawed off shotgun under the National Firearms Act. That court never "held" that the 2d was not an individual right, only that the scanty record of the case before failed to establish that sawed-off shotguns were among the times of arms suitable for militia use. In accordance with correct judicial procedure, the case had been decided in the easiest, least contrtoversial fashior. Note however, that the issue of whether the defendant had an individual right was never addressed, only that if he had such a right, it had not been shown to have been breached.

The collective interpretation of the 2d Amendment has never been the established law, only part of the Bellisiles-like gun-grabbing myth.

The second thing the DC case tells us is that the issue has not gone away. The gun-grabbers are poised to strike as ever. If you want to keep your guns you must continue to vote your guns. Forget about Iraq, forget about prescription drugs, forget about anything else which might distract you: vote your guns.

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 19, 2007 12:50 PM

That article is embarrassing.

Posted by: RC at March 19, 2007 2:07 PM

That article is embarrassing.

Posted by: RC at March 19, 2007 2:13 PM

You know, I don't belong to the NRA. But, I swears, now I'm going to join 'em just so I can be officially unconscionable in the eyes of the Wash. Post.

Posted by: Twn at March 19, 2007 3:11 PM

Article on Lucianne? about how papers are making available the names and addys of those who have guns under the "public's right to know" who's carrying.

Since in some states it's public record.

Posted by: Sandy P at March 19, 2007 6:05 PM

What will they report when the crime/murder rate drops in DC? Nothing.

Posted by: Jay at March 19, 2007 8:02 PM


They're just like you: They have a problem with how the Constitution was "reinterpreted" 1791.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at March 21, 2007 1:06 AM