Quote of the Day
If you look at the Founding era dictionaries SCOTUS in Heller used to define the 2A terms, and then you look at the definition of “to infringe” in those same dictionaries… the phrase means “to hinder or destroy.” Given that definition of “to infringe” from Samuel Johnson/Noah Webster (both founding era lexicographers, i.e., dictionary makers), ask yourself this….. does restricting or banning the ability to acquire an “arm” constitute something that would “hinder” the “right to keep and bear arms”? Obviously yes because any restrictions on the ability to ACQUIRE AN ARM necessarily HINDERS our ability to keep and bear arms. Thus, restrictions, bans or limitations on the right to acquire arms (ghost gun rules, home-made gun rules, waiting periods, etc.), are an hindrance and thus constitute an INFRINGEMENT
Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar on X
December 2, 2023
Words mean things. Those who ignore or warp the meanings of words disable the means to accurately communicate with other. This can be through negligence, ignorance, or evil intent.
Prepare and respond appropriately.
Smith is top shelve. The single malt of constitutional lawyers. His four boxes diner is a treasure trove of information into the workings of the court in 2A.
Go give a listen if you have the time.
It seems Heller and Bruen were Judge Thomas’s way of f–king with the rest of the system.
A long way around to “shall not be infringed”. Thomas put government back in the box, they just refuse to admit it to themselves. And what were witnessing in the courts/government/statehouses is them bouncing around the inside of that box.
From Smith; Bruen was a re-enforcement of Heller by the SCOTUS. And the interests of the government are limited to the time of the passing of 2A. And that in any 2A case. The burden of proof is shifted to the government. It has to show laws that were in place at the time of the passing of 2A. Of which almost none exist.
What wasn’t then, can’t be today. The people have the right to chose how best to defend themselves. That’s not for government to control.
Accessories are also a part of your right to keep and bear arms. As banning magazines would deny people a whole class of firearms that use them. And limiting capacity is government once again choosing how we defend ourselves.
And one thing Smith should have made part of his presentation at the constitutional bar party was that the courts need to be ready. As suppressors and machine guns are going to be questions brought to the court soon. And emotionalism is not going to cut it.
How they feel about something has nothing to do with the law.
Amen, brother. As my Corporations professor said to the class once, “Words are our business.”
We either rule by words and laws or we’re back to strongman rule of muscle and mob.
And this changing of meanings for the expediency of our rulers is not rule by words and law. The sooner our Bread and Circuses Kardashian watching electorate learn this the better it will be for our republic.
As God might say, “Don’t make me send James Buchanan to you again.”