Imagine the case being made in 1775 that this man had no right to his gun, and it was in the interests or public safety to take it from him– in other words, Gen. Gage’s position. Now imagine some Tory arguing such a gun was not in common use at the time. These lying arguments are exactly what modern gun-grabbers claim about today’s militia-suitable arms, and our right to keep and bear them.
The lawsuit challenging Maryland’s ban, enacted by “we must do something” opportunists following Sandy Hook, resulted in what attorney Andrew Branca called a “Big #2A Win,” in that the panel applied “strict scrutiny,” a standard of legal review requiring a “law must advance not merely any governmental interest, but in particular a compelling governmental interest [and] the law must also be narrowly tailored to actually achieve that interest.”
That’s a much higher bar to meet than “intermediate scrutiny,” which pretty much allows a government to get away with whatever it wants with an unproven “public safety” claim. Under strict scrutiny, Branca noted, “the vast majority of gun laws currently on the books would inescapably be found to be unconstitutional infringements of the Second Amendment, and discarded.”
More
3 comments:
Is anyone else sick and damned tired of seeing how our legal system has bent, twisted, deformed, deviated, re-interpreted on and on..., the basic wording of our laws? And, it ain't just the Constitution they've done it to.
For instance, I'm guilty of DUI if I have a few too many at the bar on a cold January night and decide to start my car keep warm while I wait to sober up. That is no more what the legislature had in mind as 'DUI' then them believing the sea ain't salty. It sickens me to see how these shysters have convoluted the laws to their liking.
Why I moved to Virginia, we can own AR-15's and 100 round mags!
We also all get issued a carry permit.
I live in a free country, and I have all the licenses and permits to prove it.
Post a Comment