THIS POST EDITED TO CONFORM WITH MY REPLY IN
THIS THREAD (
#29)
Isn't that special.
I'll begin with an attack on the intellectual honesty of the blogger you cite / quote (and by extension, your intellectual honesty). Then I will turn to the premise of his statement; the conclusion he draws from what he "quotes" from "
Heller".
So, even though he presents his "quote" as "
From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling," and you bold that for dramatic effect in the OP, the link and the text he presents points to and directly copies from the Wikipedia article on
DC v Heller.
Uhhhhh, that's not quite the same thing LOL.
If one was to actually refer to the actual case we would find the full paragraph as written by Scalia. I have highlighted in red what has been excised or significantly altered (and I was generous):
Like most rights, the
right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.
See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
26
Footnote 26: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
Now, to address the basic premise of your blogger . . .
It is a mistake to read that paragraph (severely edited or original) divorced from its footnote. Scalia holds those laws as merely "
presumptively lawful" . . . Because,
1) the Court was not undertaking an exhaustive historical analysis of the full scope of the Second Amendment and
2) none of those laws were under review, thus having no doubt cast upon them).
But . . .
The many laws that
have been challenged previously and upheld in state and lower federal courts were upheld using reasoning that
Heller was invalidating (namely the "state's right" and "militia right" inventions of 1942).
Those laws that have
only those crumbling blocks to rest on
will fall and there are many, many many laws like that (example, pretty much the entire New Jersey gun control scheme is infirm, see Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968)).
So to the readers out there . . . who's the most disingenuous one, Lakhota or the asshole that put this deceitful garbage up originally?
My next task focuses on this question . . .
How many of the cited references in the real quote have you read?
Do you think they support your "vision" of the right to arms or mine?
I will post tomorrow with the cited excerpts for them but here are two, just as a tease:
Citation -- Rawle 123:
- "The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
Citation -- Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251:
- "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!"
So how truthful is your blogger's closing statement? He said:
"There is no constitutional bar to some limitation and regulation of firearms. The real question — the only real question, to my mind — is whether there is the political will for it."
Must you anti-Liberty twits lie about everything?
