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
|Washing machine whisperer|
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.
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".
The Supreme Court denied Kolbe v Hogan today.
This means that any district, so inclined, will be pushing for the ban of the AR, AK, and anything else they can label an assault weapon.
Yeah this could be big. I do not understand why they refused to hear it, with no comment or dissent.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector.
Actually it's a good thing that SCOTUS didn't hear it. If this court were to rule it would be most likely to be a watered down remarks on the 2nd allowing more restrictions in states that don't have all the crap we have in Maryland. Allow Trump to send another conservative judge to the court and I bet it shows up again in front of them. Also given the timing Los Vegas and other events while they shouldn't taint the court it does. Chris
|Powered by Social Strata|