There is a lot of statistical disagreement on whether the Miranda rule saves lives or not, whether it results in the release of dangerous people who have confessed to their crime but the confession can’t be used. We don’t — we don’t resolve questions like that on the basis of statistics, do we?
Well, why would this one be resolved on the basis of statistics? If there is a constitutional right, we find what the minimum constitutional right is and everything above that is up to the States.
Justice Antonin Scalia
March 2, 2010
Regarding the incorporation of the Second Amendment.
Oral arguments in OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL., : Petitioners : v. : No. 08-1521 CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.
[As expected, he uses a better example than I did yesterday when refuting Half-Truth Henigan’s claim that the Second Amendment is the most dangerous right.–Joe]
I prefer this quote from Gura:
States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.
That probably would have been higher on my list too but Robb Allen used it before I got the chance. I prefer to not post about something that has been well covered by someone else.
Also, this quote can be used as a direct refutation of Henigan’s claim about the Second Amendment being “the most dangerous right”. I think it is important to discredit the Brady Campaign as much and as frequently as possible. I want their organization, and those like it, withered up and to only exist in the dustbin of history.
California is waiting on a McDonald ruling before they settle the Calguns discretionary licensing lawsuit.
It seems that the next step (G-d willing and the creek don’t rise) though for Chicago (Illinois) will be a requirement to allow fairly non-restrictive carry of some type.
In that vein, what’s the status of SAF’s Palmer v. DC (Heller II: Carry Boogaloo) motion?
Oral argument was to have been Jan 22, any idea when we can expect an update (SAF’s site doesn’t have any info)?
Thanks,
Matthew Carberry
Meanwhile, the Washington State Supreme Court jumped the gun, and essentially incoroporated the 2nd Amendment in Washington State.
Of course Washington State, unlike the US, actually has a phrase in their Constitution that specifically delineates the reason for keeping and bearing arms,
“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”