Monday, July 28, 2008

Still Spewing The Same Old Crap

About Heller being a reversal of precedent.

"The decision contradicts nearly 70 years of precedent linking that right to the amendment's reference to "a well-regulated militia."

In a sense, the decision states the obvious. Few could argue that Americans own 250 million guns so they can be ready to join a militia."

Really? The court didn't say that the right was completely unrelated to the militia. In fact, Scalia went into great detail about the right and it's connection to " a well-regulated militia." The article states,

"Few could argue that Americans own 250 million guns so they can be ready to join a militia."

Actually, the SCOTUS opinion contradicts the above claim. Scalia went into detail describing how the two phrases fit together. The Court absolutely said it was a right connected to militia service, because individual ownership was necessary to the continued existence of "a well-regulated militia." All the court said was that it was, first and foremost, and individual right, and that the right encompassed more than just the means to keep & bear arms in an unorganized civilian militia. And of course, if there's no implicit right to keep & bear arms for individual self-defense what good is a right to keep arms in defense of the State?

Also, could the press please quit the tired "Heller overturned 70 years of precedent" argument? That so called "precedent" in Miller is non-existent. The Miller ruling made no determination whatsoever as to whether the 2nd Amendment was an individual right or a "collective right" of state militias. The text of the majority decision actually supports the individual rights view, as I've touched on before, yet people continue to cling to Miller in total ignorance. Bitter clingers maybe?


mike's spot said...

wow good for Fordham, but darn my native syracuse for being stupid.

Mike W. said...

Well the non-rural areas of NY aren't exactly known for being gun-friendly.

I know we see it all the time, but it never ceases to amaze me how people can base their entire argument on things that are so blatantly false. Of course Justice Steven's did the same thing, basing his Dissent on a flawed understanding of Miller. Honestly, I doubt Steven's himself even read Miller.