The Second Amendment – The original homeland security.
Anonymous
The statist and fascist mayor Daly had this to say:
Daly said his primary goal would be to protect police officers, paramedics and emergency workers from being shot when responding to an incident at a home. He said he also wants to save taxpayers from the financial cost of lawsuits if police shoot someone in the house because the officer felt threatened.
"If the ban is overturned, we will see a lot of common-sense approaches in the city aimed at protecting first responders," Daley said. "We have to have some type of registry. If a first responder goes to an apartment, they need to know if that individual has a gun."
In other words, we may have to allow people to own firearms, but we will regulate you to death. The safety of police and other first responders is a red herring. In States like Texas, Arizona, Florida and Utah (Along with Vermont and Alaska) have the most liberal laws in regards to gun ownership, and I mean truly liberal. Police there generally do not have a problem with individuals legally possessing firearms. This is a fall back measure by Daly to restrict people based on his illogical and statist world view.
Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."
This is a happy day for liberty loving people, even with the continued threat from social progressive statists like Daly, Obama and others. Alito's affirming that gun ownership extends to the states sends a clear message to left wing progressive ideologues that our natural rights will be defended, promulgated and affirmed at all levels of government, no matter how much it pains them in their pursuit of making us Farm Animals®.
Thank you for reading this blog.
8 Bloviations:
Not to rain on the picnic, but the decision does a blow to the Tenth.
On the one hand, it seems beneficial. That is, if it doesn't jump-up and bite us on the arse later.
Cheers, though!
Actually, it doesn't step on the tenth as the 2nd outlines freedom to possess arms. If it wasn't mentioned, like the fiction with abortion with roe v wade, you'd be right, but you are not. The constitution does affirm that right, so it is not left to the states, and read this: not as an absolute.
I hope you're right. Better: I'll assume you're right. I am a total dweeb on matters of Law.
I sure hope this plays out.
It's Marbury v Madison type stuff. Thing is, leftists choose to pretend the second amendment isn't in the constitution, just as they pretend that the right to kill children is in the constitution.
The Left-Wing Socialist Party pretends the 2nd amendment does not exist.
The Right-Wing Socialist Party prentends the 10th does not exist by voting for, protecting and expanding every Federal program possible plus adding a few new ones of their own.
The Founding Fathers are in tears at the bi-partisan rape of America.
RG:
From the Plurality's opinion: "…incorporation of the Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated."
Thus proving Gary wrong. Firstly, Gary doesn't have a useful operative definition of "Right". 20th century Republicans had not been on the "Right" so much as they had been part of the Left's "progressive" cancer for decades. (Read Jonah Goldberg and get back to us.) That, too, is changing.
What gary means is that left wing people do not look at the second amendment as an individual right recognized and protected by the constitution as they do, lets say the first amendment as it related to freedom of speech. The bill of rights and other amendments are what I call foundational law. States should not write and pass law that infringes on constitutional law, although that is why these cases go before the supreme court. FWIW, it is my position that the bill of rights is not a document that protects in a collective nature, as the left and right do depending on their postions, but rather it protects individual rights. Lastly, the rights therein protected do not come from that document, but are natural rights endowed from our creator.
RG,
Thanks.
Post a Comment