Quote of the Day
Instead of addressing whether the banned items are “dangerous and unusual,” Bevis changes the criterion to say that “Assault-weapons and high-capacity magazines regulations are not ‘unusual,’” because eight states ban them. Since 42 states don’t, that sounds kind of unusual.
Stephen P. Halbrook
March 14, 2023
Second Amendment Roundup: An Opening Judicial Salvo in Defense of Illinois’ New Rifle Ban
Words mean something. And when judges decide to change the meanings of words we have entered new territory:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Prepare and respond appropriately.
The Jim Crow laws weren’t particularly unusual, either, Judge. Just because a bunch of your friends are jumping off the un-Constitutional bridge doesn’t mean it’s OK for you to do it, too. Wrong is still wrong even if you’re the only person at the convention that doesn’t want to try the pulled long-pig barbecue sandwich made from sustainably harvested vagrant.
Of course, this is where the Bruen decision gets it completely wrong. “Historical analysis” is not valid at all, no more than “strict scrutiny” is, where the plain English words of the Constitution have a Plain English Meaning.
“Shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean “may be infringed if it was done 200 years ago” (“historic analysis”). Nor does it mean “may be infringed if the state comes up with a plausible sounding excuse for doing so” (“strict scrutiny”). It means NOT, not now, not ever, no matter whether it was done in the past or whether someone claims there is an argument for letting him get away with doing it.
This is exactly what happens when you allow them to go outside the original text.
Since when did the 2A say anything about dangerous and unusual weapons? And no one in the decision asked; If it wasn’t dangerous, it wouldn’t be considered a weapon? Thus, not even under the purview of the court?
The problem is political bias. It’s time the courts started calling it plain.
Nothing about 2A is a difficult decision. Just an unpopular one in certain circles.
So much for even the thin veil of democracy they hide behind.
Bans aren’t unusual? There what started the revolution!
Bingo. “Dangerous” is high on the list of things I require of my weapons.
If it wasn’t “dangerous”, I wouldn’t want it for personal, family, and home protection.
As the man said, “Is gun. Is not safe.”
My Google-fu is weak today, so I am unable to find the exact quote, but IIRC Gottlieb(?) argued in D.C. v Heller something to the extent of:
“The fact that governments have become accustomed to violating the rights of citizens does not bootstrap those violations into Constitutionality.”
From the linked article:
In denying the motion for a preliminary injunction, Bevis adds: “No binding precedent, however, establishes that a deprivation of any constitutional right is presumed to cause irreparable harm.”
And here she gets it so thoroughly wrong, she’s bound to be overturned. Bruen (which she quoted extensively) explicitly said that any infringement of a protected right constitutes irreparable harm.
Or is she audaciously claiming that the Supreme Court of the United States’ Bruen decision is not a binding precedent?
“Bruen decision is not a binding precedent?”
For communist judges. I think they see it as just a temporary decision. And are trying to act accordingly.
Then again, the Constitution doesn’t mention precedent. It only requires judges to obey the Constitution, and the laws and treaties validly made under its terms. One might argue that precedent is what you use as a shortcut to getting the right answer, on the theory that the previous answer was correct and the current situation is close enough. (I was going to add “you might also use precedent if the law is a muddle and the Constitution is no help” — but that doesn’t actually happen: if the Constitution doesn’t say anything about some topic, then by definition the Federal government isn’t allowed there — so “if the Constitution doesn’t say” equals “the Constitution says NO”.) Clearly by the rules of the Constitution, if there is a conflict between law and precedent, law must win.
The fact that Dred Scott and Korematsu are precedent is quite irrelevant — the Constitution requires them to be ignored (and of course, human decency requires them to be contemned).