Ammo For Sale

« « Something must be done | Home | News you can use » »

“a leading gun control advocate”

Who I’ve never heard of. One Avery Gardiner, Brady Campaign Co-president (honestly, I’d kind of forgotten Brady still existed), drops the big lie regarding Kavanaugh:

What we know about his stances is through the opinions hes issued on assault weapons. A challenge to DCs ban on assault weapons went before him and two other judgesall three were [appointed by] Republicans. The panel split 2-1 to uphold the law, with Judge Kavanaugh as the dissenter. He thinks assault weapons are within the scope of the Second Amendment, which puts him way out of step with the Supreme Court and circuit courts that have considered this issue. [The Second Amendment] protects the kinds of weapons that were in common use at the timein 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted. Those are [former Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalias words. Judge Kavanaugh just uses the first part of that phrase, in common use and leaves out the at the time part.

Perhaps she should read the Heller decision:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 3536 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

10 Responses to ““a leading gun control advocate””

  1. Ron W Says:

    As the subordinate clause beginning the sentence of the 2nd Amendment, it would protect the right of the People to keep and bear (carry) “militia” weapons and of course, the “modern forms” thereof.

    By the way, some say one must be a part of a government militia to exercise that right. But Article I, Section 8.16 would contradict that since the government was only delegated power “for governing such part” of the militia which is EMPLOYED in its service. And, only the People have rights, the government ( those employed in its service) have no rights in their positions, but operate UNDER our delegated powers.

  2. rickn8or Says:

    “By the way, some say one must be a part of a government militia to exercise that right.”

    IIRC iin Heller v. DC, the court was 9-0 that the right to keep and bear arms existed independent of membership in a militia. Where the court split was over just what degree of infringement was permissible.
    I predicted then that we would spend the next forty years pinning down an exact definition of “infringed”, much like Roe v. Wade is still being contested today.

  3. Ron W Says:

    @rickn80r, SCOTUS got that first part right, but “shall not be infringed” means NO infringement! That simply reiterates that the fedgov has NO delegated powers re: gun laws pertaining to the People without which it may do NOTHING according to the 10th Amendment.

  4. rickn8or Says:

    Ron W: A-yep.

  5. Ravenwood Says:

    Just once it’d be nice if the media doing the interview would have done their homework and called out this “lawyer” on spreading lies and misinformation.

    One of the refreshing things about Tucker Carlson is that he’d probably have fired back at the Brady Gun Banner.. “Oh no.. Heller clearly states…”

  6. dustydog Says:

    The word army literally means to arm. The meaning of the word word “arms” in the 2nd Amendment literally is the same as in Article 1 Section 8 (“To raise and support Armies”) and Article 2 Section 1 (“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States”)

  7. Ron W Says:

    @dustydog…yes, “such part of them as may be EMPLOYED in the SERVICE of the United States.” “Them” in the context of Article I, Section 8.15-16, refers to the militia, that is, the armed citizenry. The U.S. Government has NO delegated power over the militia, the armed citizenry, which is why it is mentioned in the beginning subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment DECLARATION of the right of the People–except those employed in its service.

    We need elected and appointed officials (judges) who have been educated in basic English grammar read in context. Furthermore they should know and be submissive that to be in authority, they must be under authority.

  8. mikee Says:

    Yet I believe Avery might protest against me owning and using a cannon, perfectly aligned with legal 1780s citizen behavior, because that big bore blaster is defined as a weapon of mass destruction today and requires special licensing, which is available only in some parts of the US.

    If they had no double standards, they’d have none at all.

  9. Ron W Says:

    @mikee, you may have trouble bearing a cannon to conform to the wording of the 2nd Amendment right, but the government has no delegated power to prevent you from owning one or having several of your friends to chip in and buy one….

    “Congress can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.” –James Madison, Federalist 57

  10. JayF Says:

    Ravenwood Says:

    Just once it’d be nice if the media doing the interview would have done their homework and called out this “lawyer” on spreading lies and misinformation.

    The media doing the interview is Mother Jones.

    MOST of what they print about guns is lies and misinformation.