Constitutional-law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate say that Hardiman — who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit and maintains chambers in Pittsburgh — holds a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than the Supreme Court has articulated to date. His nomination and confirmation would push the court to the right, they say, making it more likely that justices would agree to hear cases challenging gun laws — and perhaps to strike them down.

Emma Brown
July 6, 2018
Thomas Hardiman, possible Supreme Court nominee, seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist’
[I’m reminded of something attributed to Barry Goldwater:

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

But that leaves the claim of “extremism” unchallenged. Adhering to the letter and intent of the U.S. Constitution cannot legitimately be considered extremist. Those who advocate for the departure from the letter and intent of the Constitution are the extremists.

And a final note, Supreme Court appointees who adhere to the letter and intent of the Constitution is one of the primary reasons why I and tens of millions of other gun owners voted against Hillary Clinton. If this is who President Trump nominates to fill Kennedys seat, then thank you President Trump.—Joe]

Snyder’s arguments are compelling: they hinge on several easy-to-swallow propositions.

First, he asserts that we have rights, and first amongst those is our right to life. From that right, he infers a right to self defense, without which the right to life is rendered meaningless. Thus, with a right to self defense, one has the right to posess the means with which to render such defense effective – ergo, the right to own and use a firearm.
Second, he asserts that classical liberal theories of government hinge on the notion of “government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.” Sound familiar? This is the idea of government by consent set forth in the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson. Snyder argues that consent is meaningless without the ability to object, and to enforce such a negative vote. Thus, firearms allow the citizenry to collectively enforce their will on their subject, and any infringement upon their rights (already established above) to own and use them violates the principle of consensual government.

The arguments hardly stop there – Snyder continues to logically follow the arguments of gun control to their conclusions, thus demonstrating the grounds on which he calls them self-contradictory and immoral.

Amongst other topics, Snyder launches attacks against irresponsibility, instrumentalism (denier of will), and utilitarianism (the destroyer of rights). While many of the same arguments are repeated throughout the text, one must remember that the chapters are merely a collection of columns, speeches, and articles written throughout the years. While this does detract from the cogency of the text as a whole, it is undeniably admirable as a purely ethical defense of arms-bearing.

If there’s only one book you buy about gun control, make it this one.

T. Piatek
July 26, 2002
Amazon review of Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control
[I concur.—Joe]

In 1936, sawed-off shotguns and Tommy guns were heavily taxed and regulated by both state and federal law, to the point that sales plummeted, which essentially had the effect of banning them. In 1986 (in a law signed by President Reagan), Congress made fully automatic weapons (machine guns) illegal. None of these actions constituted an “attack” on the Second Amendment, nor did the 1994 ban on “assault weapons,” which expired in 2004. Another ban on these weapons, which were specifically designed for combat, also would not constitute an attack on the Second Amendment, nor would it constitute an attack on NRA members, law-abiding gun owners, or hunters.

Jim Mastro
Dover, New Hampshire
June 30, 2018
There is no attack on gun rights
[I have no words to describe someone who even pretends to believe this.

Of course, he is an admitted fiction writer.—Joe]

My goal as president of the NRA is very simple, all I want to do is double the membership.

Oliver North
June 29, 2018
North aims to double gun lobby’s members
[That sounds like a good start.—Joe]

Impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute, but in such circumstances, the excusal constitutes an interpretation of the statute in accordance with the Legislature’s intent, not an invalidation of the statute.

Goodwin Liu
California State Supreme Court Justice
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,  v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
S239397
Ct.App. 5 F072310
Fresno County
Super. Ct. No. 14CECG00068
[See also California Supreme Court Upholds Bullet Micro-Stamping Law and Laws That Are ‘Impossible’ to Follow Can Still Be Constitutional, Says California Court

Background:

The Legislature amended the definition of unsafe handguns to include “all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015 [if] not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.

The manufactures said this requirement was impossible to comply with. The State Supreme court just said that doesn’t invalidate the law. You may not have to comply with the law, but the law still stands.

What I didn’t see in a quick scan through the ruling was whether the California DOJ will be required to ignore that part of the law when the test new guns in regards to whether the guns are safe or not and will people be able to purchase new guns which do not meet the microstamping requirements.

My thought is this is crazy talk. Just get out of there. These people are nuts.—Joe]