Quote of the day–William H. Neukom

Revisiting the basic premise of the Second Amendment and striking down gun legislation for the first time in 216 years would have ripple effects through this entire network of state and local regulation. Although the Court ruled in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), that the Second Amendment limits the power only of the federal government, the decision relied on the importance of militias as a check on federal power. Separating the right to bear arms from the maintenance of a well regulated militia would cast doubt on the authority of state and local governments to regulate firearms. Such a ruling would thus invite challenges to hundreds of state and local restrictions, thrusting upon the courts difficult policy judgments about the reasonableness of individual regulations.

William H. Neukom
January 11, 2008
President American Bar Association
Brief of the American Bar Association as amicus curiae supporting petitioners.
[Would Neukon have expressed the same concerns if the case under consideration had been freeing the slaves, granting minorities equal access to the law, or allowing women access to abortion? Besides I don’t see there being any difficulty in judging the reasonableness of individual regulations when the wording of the Second Amendment is so clear, “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Hence, if the regulation impedes, rather than assists, the people in keeping and bearing arms the regulation is unreasonable. Next case please.–Joe]

2 thoughts on “Quote of the day–William H. Neukom

  1. Apparently Mr. Neukom read a different version of Presser than I did. Specifically, his version must not have included these expressions of the Court’s understanding of the right to arms:

    (I)n view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.

    It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.

    Then again, Mr. Neukom lives in Seattle, in the 9th Circuit, where that court has declared that

    the Second Amendment “imposes no limitation on California’s [or any other state’s] ability to enact legislation regulating or prohibiting the possession or use of firearms” and “does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms.”

    You know, it was my understanding that a lower court didn’t have the power to tell the Supreme Court that they were out to lunch in precedent-setting decisions.

    He’s damned right it’ll have a “ripple effect.” Overturning 70+ years of bad precedent has that kind of effect.

    Chicago first, California second.

  2. Neukom and gang know they can’t win if they are truthful. You see a bunch of that kind of crap in their briefs. Extremely misleading and even completely false stuff.

Comments are closed.