2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,834
- 52,098
- 2,290
Here we have another look at the insane ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals which essentially guts the 2nd Amendment if the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't bitch slap them repeatedly....
The Conspiracy To Dismember Heller
The consequences of the ruling cannot be overstated. In essence, the 4th Circuit has contrived a brand-new constitutional “test,” the practical effect of which is the removal of Second Amendment protection from any firearm that a judge happens not to like.
In Heller, the Supreme Court took three related positions:
First, that firearms “in common use” may not be banned;
second, that while “dangerous” arms may be regulated, only those that are “unusual” in addition are eligible for prohibition; and
third, that a government may not ban certain types of guns on the understanding that other types remain available.
In a follow-up case, Caetano v. Massachusetts, Justice Samuel Alito stated in his concurrence that “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.”
Disgracefully, the 4th Circuit ignored all these prescriptions—which it was duty-bound to follow—electing instead to devise its own rule: that if a weapon is “most useful in military service,” it enjoys no constitutional protection.
In so doing, the court thumbed its nose at its superiors and quietly rewrote the law for millions of Americans.
The problem with this standard is self-evident, for there is no weapon on Earth that could be placed outside of this description. Longswords are “most useful” within a military context, as are handguns, shotguns, crossbows and lever-actions. Your grandfather’s hunting rifle would have been handy at Normandy, just as his father’s trusty pocketknife would have been crucial in the Ardennes.
----------
Also, lacking a limiting principle is the court’s baleful resuscitation of the idea that any gun ban is acceptable providing that it is not exhaustive—a proposition that was considered, and rejected, in Heller.
As other courts have observed, such a standard would inevitably lead to a death spiral for the Second Amendment, as governments could pick the least-effective weapon covered under the term “arms”—a dagger, say—and prohibit everything else.
As Justice Clarence Thomas is fond of reminding Americans, the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right” to be treated as a relic or a curiosity; it is an equal, indispensable, and unalienable part of the Bill of Rights.
It would not pass muster under the First Amendment for a state government to argue that it could ban newspapers because individuals still enjoyed access to Twitter, or vice versa.
Nor would it be accepted if a particular church were banned on the understanding that others were left alone. The Court’s standards have been laid out, and the 4th Circuit is obliged to follow them. It has abdicated that obligation.
The Conspiracy To Dismember Heller
The consequences of the ruling cannot be overstated. In essence, the 4th Circuit has contrived a brand-new constitutional “test,” the practical effect of which is the removal of Second Amendment protection from any firearm that a judge happens not to like.
In Heller, the Supreme Court took three related positions:
First, that firearms “in common use” may not be banned;
second, that while “dangerous” arms may be regulated, only those that are “unusual” in addition are eligible for prohibition; and
third, that a government may not ban certain types of guns on the understanding that other types remain available.
In a follow-up case, Caetano v. Massachusetts, Justice Samuel Alito stated in his concurrence that “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.”
Disgracefully, the 4th Circuit ignored all these prescriptions—which it was duty-bound to follow—electing instead to devise its own rule: that if a weapon is “most useful in military service,” it enjoys no constitutional protection.
In so doing, the court thumbed its nose at its superiors and quietly rewrote the law for millions of Americans.
The problem with this standard is self-evident, for there is no weapon on Earth that could be placed outside of this description. Longswords are “most useful” within a military context, as are handguns, shotguns, crossbows and lever-actions. Your grandfather’s hunting rifle would have been handy at Normandy, just as his father’s trusty pocketknife would have been crucial in the Ardennes.
----------
Also, lacking a limiting principle is the court’s baleful resuscitation of the idea that any gun ban is acceptable providing that it is not exhaustive—a proposition that was considered, and rejected, in Heller.
As other courts have observed, such a standard would inevitably lead to a death spiral for the Second Amendment, as governments could pick the least-effective weapon covered under the term “arms”—a dagger, say—and prohibit everything else.
As Justice Clarence Thomas is fond of reminding Americans, the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right” to be treated as a relic or a curiosity; it is an equal, indispensable, and unalienable part of the Bill of Rights.
It would not pass muster under the First Amendment for a state government to argue that it could ban newspapers because individuals still enjoyed access to Twitter, or vice versa.
Nor would it be accepted if a particular church were banned on the understanding that others were left alone. The Court’s standards have been laid out, and the 4th Circuit is obliged to follow them. It has abdicated that obligation.
Last edited: