Obama administration takes position on second amendment
12 Responses to “Obama administration takes position on second amendment”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 21st, 2011 at 9:21 am
What? For his secret service?
October 21st, 2011 at 9:27 am
Surprising. Gonna have to RTWT when I can get on my computer.
October 21st, 2011 at 9:55 am
You can carry anywhere outside your house except where we don’t want you to (which is just about anywhere outside your house).
October 21st, 2011 at 10:52 am
Not so much as I read it. The second half of the statement is that a ban on carry is just fine. Quote: “the Administration’s position is that […] a ban on carry is not […] unconstitutional under this standard.”
October 21st, 2011 at 10:53 am
A right, to keep and bear arms outside of the home, that will be infringed upon.
October 21st, 2011 at 2:05 pm
The bastard knows he’s screwed come election time and is trying to score brownie points with the gullible.
Anyone with a lick of sense is Furious and wants his ass out of office Fast.
October 21st, 2011 at 2:25 pm
“this is only deserving of some form of mid-level scrutiny”
NOT strict scrutiny, so that tells the whole story right there. Obama does NOT respect the second amendment.
October 21st, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Didn’t see where the 0 chimed in, but I did scan it pretty quick. If that’s what he said, then he’s just trying to blow smoke up the ass of the gullible, like Magus said.
October 21st, 2011 at 3:57 pm
This doublespeak works just fine on the supporters of the President, who lack the intellectual rigor to follow a logical argument, but those interested in gun rights have had decades of experience with everything from “common sense gun regulations that everyone can agree with” to “no enumeratged individual right in the 2nd Amendment, just a collective right.”
Anyone with any experience with anti-rights shenanigans recognizes this method, say one thing while doing the opposite.
Strict scrutiny is the only standard of judicial review for an enumerated right.
October 21st, 2011 at 4:51 pm
“…the right to carry a firearm outside the home…” and hand it over the confiscation authorities standing outside.
October 21st, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Court rulings are built out of a bunch of little legal pieces.
The administration recognized a fundamental right to carry outside the home; but recommended that right be given only intermediate scrutiny.
Masc’s argument agrees that there is a fundamental right to carry outside the home, but that it should be protected by strict scrutiny.
The administration just ceded without a fight that “carry outside the home” is, in fact, a core part of the RKBA. That’s huge in and of itself. Now all we’re arguing about is scrutiny, not the existance of teh right itself.
All those liberal lower courts completely ducking the right to carry issue? They just got the word from on liberal high that that particular battle is over and we won. They will now be on their back foot having to justify their scrutiny level decisions.
Consider reasoning like that in Ezell (which hewed to Heller very closely and will likely be preferred by the Heller 5 as it doesn’t, like some of the other lower court rulings, tacitly insult their decision-making ability or the meaning of the words they deliberately chose) which stated that strict scrutiny is applicable to the core parts of the RKBA.
(Remember the administration is just -recommending- intermediate scrutiny, they don’t actually have a say)
If the Heller 5 consistently apply Ezell reasoning to the administration’s concession on carry being core to the RKBA, then loaded, ready-for-use carry of some sort gets strict scrutiny protection end of story (see Scalia’s reasoning on unloaded and locked storage requirements being unacceptable).
Even better, such a strict scrutiny read will conform to the Heller “dicta” about “sensitive places rules probably being Constitutional” but will force the .gov to actually justify why they apply to particular locations like unsecured, open-to-the-public facilities like Post Offices, museums, etc.
Merely stating “there’s a Federal employee on the premises” should no longer suffice.
Anyway, the administration just ceded more than they had to and provided the Heller 5 an opening to drive a tank through, carry rights-wise, if they so choose.
October 21st, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Thanks for explaining that more, Matthew. I didn’t get much from the article, and I tried to read the legalese, but blood started leaking from my ears and eyes. 😀
I guess this is pretty cool, hope all of it gets used to our advantage as far as possible.