Comments on: Another post-Heller Lawsuit

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:15:03 +0000

Going after MA or NY is premature. Winnetka has a total ban, so they’re the low hanging fruit we need for a good incorporation case. Once it’s stare decisis that the Second Amendment applies to the states, then it will make sense to challenge state laws that severely burden the right to bear arms without abrogating it entirely. Bringing such a suit now would run an unnecessary risk of losing on multiple theories, with one minority ruling that the licensing schemes in question are not burdensome enough to constitute an “infringement,” another minority ruling that the RKBA is only good against the federal government, and these two minorities adding up to a majority.

By: Lyle

Lyle — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:14:35 +0000

When will some city government officials get charged with crimes for willful violation of the U.S. Constitution?

Or should it be considered perfectly acceptable to violate the Constitution after taking an Oath to uphold and defend it?

But the problem there is, every politician in the country would be removed from office. No wait– that wouldn’t be a problem at all. Actually it would be wonderful. Then we could get our country back and elect new douchbags. But they’d be douchbags held to the law.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:12:02 +0000

I think they’re going in Illinois because their bans mimic those of the DC ban. that would lead to incorporation and on from there.

I was surprised no suits in MA or NYC, myself. But the plan makes sense.

By: jd

jd — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:09:36 +0000

When will they get around to helping us in MA???