Upside Down “Legal Scholar”

Quote of the Day

It’s a completely crazy standard. They have turned the interpretation of the Second Amendment completely upside down.

Albert Alschuler
University of Chicago “legal scholar”
March 20, 2023
How The Courts Are Strangling Gun Reform

No. This dimwit has things “completely upside down”.The courts are implementing gun law reform. What part of “shall not be infringed” doesn’t he understand? Granted, he still thinks the 2nd Amendment protects the right of states to have a militia. But in the Heller decision all nine SCOTUS justices agreed (only five agreed with the entire decision) that it protects an individual right.

If he were an actual “legal scholar” he would have read and understood the Heller decision.


5 thoughts on “Upside Down “Legal Scholar”

  1. ” What part of “shall not be infringed” doesn’t he understand? Granted, he still thinks the 2nd Amendment protects the right of states to have a militia.”
    True, but like all commies they want you to only argue inside their perimeters. They talk about militia.(standing army), but the sentence is finished by the words, “free state”.
    “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a FREE state.”
    What would men who had lost almost everything but their lives fighting the world most well-regulated army consider a “free state”?
    (And according to justice Thomas, would be the historic part. Seeing how gun-control advocates started the whole shooting war in the first place?)
    We are guaranteed none of them was thinking of gun-control as part of a “free state”.
    So the next time someone says the 2A is for only the militia, (army of government), tell them no. The training of militia is only to help protect a free state. Which is the polar opposite of government controls in any language. And their intent is reenforced by the words, “The right of the people to keep band bear arm, shall not be infringed.”
    And for the historical record. Let it be noted that lawyers weasel wording the law is always a sign of societal erosion. And the more ignorant their arguments, the closer that society is to collapse.

  2. After Bruen, the whole anti-gun community is somewhere in the seven stages of grief on the way to the realization that they’ve been comprehensively wrong the entire time.

    The Washington legislature’s HB1240 is a manifestation of Denial, Anger and Bargaining according to where each of the sponsors currently is stuck.

    I’m sure all of them will just skip over Guilt unless they actually face real legal consequences. I’d like them to get to Acceptance but I will settle for them to set up camp in Depression.

    • The grief isn’t because they were wrong — they knew that full well. The grief is only because they were caught, and (to some extent) stopped.

      I’m still waiting for the day when the Supreme Court can read plain English words as the plain English they are, and stop wrapping weaselworded exceptions, analysis, and other crap around “shall not be infringed” in an attempt to continue to permit infringements. All that has happened is that the courts keep changing what the excuses have to look like in order for the enemies of the Constitution to get away with their hostile acts. “Historic analysis” may be somewhat better than “strict scrutiny” but either way you’re looking at made up nonsense not in any way supported by the actual words of the Constitution.

  3. I love to see their faces when I remind them that the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously agreed the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.


    When they counter that it wasn’t unanimous, it was a 5-4 split, I remind them to go read it. (They clearly haven’t.) The whole thing: the joined majority and the dissents. The Justices split on the scope of the protected right, but not that it is an individual right. On that point, they agreed 9-0.

    If they continue, I’ll remind them that their sainted Ruth Bader Ginsberg was one of those nine, and ask what else she got wrong if she was wrong here.

  4. This is a ludicrous claim by the writer. The courts are not implementing gun law reform – they are implementing the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The writer should be ashamed of himself.

Comments are closed.