SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    Kolbe v Hogan

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Kolbe v Hogan Login/Join 
Member
posted
For those unaware, Kolbe v Hogan is currently before the Supreme Court based on the court of appeals decision upholding Maryland's so-called "assault weapons" ban.

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., JD, PHD, has written an amicus brief. Dr. Vieira has spent many years studying and writing articles and books on the 2nd. He is, IMHO, one of the staunchest supporters of the right to keep and bear arms.

His latest article Supreme Court, The 2nd Amendment And The NRA is important for those who actually want to win the battle, and not just kick the can down the road until we loose our freedom.

A quote from his article:
"both Miller and Heller demand reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision in a manner which absolutely guarantees—indeed, if the Second Amendment is properly construed, requires—average Americans’ possession of “assault rifles”."

I'm posting the link to Kolbe v Hogan, where you can find Dr. Vieira's brief. This is for those who actually support the right to keep and bear arms.

Kolbe v Hogan
 
Posts: 218 | Registered: November 07, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Washing machine whisperer
Picture of Appliance Brad
posted Hide Post
About half way through. Interesting reading. Thanks for the link. I'm wondering when arms are going to be expanded to any of those items that might be carried about one's person and used for self defense. There was a good piece written on that concept a few years ago.


__________________________
Writing the next chapter that I've been looking forward to.
 
Posts: 10460 | Location: below the palm tree line of Michigan | Registered: September 17, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Appliance Brad:
About half way through. Interesting reading. Thanks for the link. I'm wondering when arms are going to be expanded to any of those items that might be carried about one's person and used for self defense. There was a good piece written on that concept a few years ago.


There is a problem with interpreting the law. People actually believe that it is a legitimate function of the courts. Its not. If you read both Federalist and Anti-Federalist you will see that there was no divide on this. The issue was, even then, they didn't trust lawyers. Those who opposed the Constitution were fearful that the judiciary would take powers never granted, and destroy the rule of law. We'll they've done it. The reason we have a Bill of Rights is because Patrick Henry knew that those we call Federalists were not to be trusted.

To answer your question, the 2nd amendment is not the defining word on the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution only recognizes the pre-existing state statutes, and delegates to Congress the authority to make them uniform so that if called upon "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions", Militia across the states would work hand in hand. Militia of course being "the whole people" as George Mason, author of the amendment noted.

Any arm that maybe used in the service as a soldier would be automatically classified as being available "for self defense".
 
Posts: 218 | Registered: November 07, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    Kolbe v Hogan

© SIGforum 2017